<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#cccccc" text="#000000">
I agree with CW and firmly believe that the ICANN's admirable but
unworkable one-application-fits-all approach for new TLDs be
discarded. And I see CW's proposal presenting a reasonable
prioritization. However...<br>
<br>
I'd like to suggest that group 2, "the public interest,
linguistic/cultural and geographical/city proposals" be divided into
public interest city-TLDs and linguistic/cultural TLDs. As a
proponent of city-TLDs, such a call can reasonably be seen as self
serving, so let me explain the split and the prioritization in favor
of cities.<br>
<br>
1. Both city-TLDs and linguistic/cultural TLDs are long overdue.
Had the Net's inventors known the scope the Net would take, they'd
certainly have taken greater care in issuing a more robust DNS
taxonomy. But with cities being the hope for a sustainable future
(if you believe in that sort of stuff) I suggest they get first
priority.<br>
<br>
2. If one were to weight the two categories for a degree of
disruption caused by not having a TLD, I'd again go with cities for
sheer number of people who will benefit, with more than 1/2 the
world's population living in urban areas. (Now urban is not
necessarily city, and I'll not focus on that now, other than to note
that we see the .nyc TLD facilitating regional consolidation.)<br>
<br>
3. The linguistic/cultural TLDs are potentially a can of worms for
nation-states with .kurd and .kashmir being two examples of where
some nation-states will strongly object. In many instances
Nation-States were created to meliorate problems of culture clashes
and we should not advocate taking that role from them lightly. Some,
like those for native cultures in North America, can be more easily
processed than others, but some degree of caution is warranted.<br>
<br>
4. A minor issue, the city and cultural/linguistic are different
enough that they should be handled by different ICANN examiners. <br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Tom Lowenhaupt<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://bit.ly/OurWiki">http://bit.ly/OurWiki</a> <br>
<br>
On 2/23/2011 2:20 PM, CW Mail wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:82C29FA6-F893-4657-8FC0-6D5589198DFF@christopherwilkinson.eu"
type="cite">Good evening:
<br>
<br>
As I understand it there will be an important meeting early next
week in Brussels which may influence what ICANN does with the new
gTLD process.
<br>
For those of you who will be present, I would recommend the
following line:
<br>
<br>
1. To disaggregate the process. First, to give priority to the
IDN applications. Secondly to separate the public interest,
linguistic/cultural and geographical/city proposals from all the
rest.
<br>
Thirdly to address the <.brand> issues as an entirely
distinct process where, with WIPO, the related competition and
trademark issues can be considered; i.e. postpone.
<br>
Fourth, to address the <.generic> proposals: these may
be supported provided that they are associated with a rigorous
registration policy, subject to public consultation .i.e. not to
postpone, but they will take longer.
<br>
<br>
2. Regarding Vertical Integration, I have seen nothing which
would lead me to amend the posting which I made last August, and
which for some reason has not been cited in any of the ICANN
Briefing Papers:
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/vi-pdp-initial-report/pdfFZQIl7H2Er.pdf">http://forum.icann.org/lists/vi-pdp-initial-report/pdfFZQIl7H2Er.pdf</a>
<br>
<br>
In short, the attempt last year within GNSO to associate the
new gTLD process with backward integration between Registrars and
Registries has (a) caused a breakdown in the bottom-up consensus
process (b) been a cause of further delay and (c) flies in the
face of ICANN's mandate as the custodian of competition policy in
the DNS. No.
<br>
<br>
I shall post this message to the Lists with which I am
associated: Governance, At Large, ISOC.
<br>
<br>
With regards to you all,
<br>
<br>
CW
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
<br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
<br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
<br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>