Fw: [council] gTLDs committee - BC and Non Coms analysis
----- Original Message -----
From: Philip
Sheppard
Sent: 03 March 2003 17:28
Subject: [council] gTLDs committee - BC and Non Coms
analysis I have tried to assemble the points of agreement and
disagreement between the two papers distributed to date. I propose we use this
analysis as the start point of our discussions on the call this week. Please let
me know if anything needs changing. Where there is over-simplification for
brevity - we can clarify on the call.
Philip.
----------------------------------------
Points of common ground between the BC and the NC on
new gTLDs
- a demand-driven approach.
- a bottom-up approach with names proposed by the interested
communities/registries to ICANN.
- names can be commercial or non-commercial as demand
dictates.
- names assigned upon request of a technically qualified
registry* (*BC would add a sponsor also).
- one registry can operate multiple domains.
- names in any language possible.
Points with a different
approach:
NC - maximum 30 new names per year.
BC - no limit.
NC - sponsored and unsponsored OK.
BC - sponsored only.
NC - synchronous requests determined by auction.
BC - first come first served, nature of the sponsor
may be deciding factor.
NC - names need not be distinct from one another.
BC - names have to be distinct from one another.
NC - registries must be linked to the name.
BC - registry need NOT be linked to only one
name.
NC - any name OK.
BC - names must meet six principles.
|