2009/10/29 Alan Greenberg said:

For a long time, I have been advocating not trying to solve all of the gTLD
> problems but rather releasing categories of gTLDs where the problems can be
> readily addressed (either because of the type of gTLD or because the
> applicant is willing to agree to sepecific measures to address the potential
> problems.
>
> This has typically been a VERY unpopular position to take in public.
>
> At this meeting, in both public and private discussions, the concept is
> receiving wide acceptance.
>

FWIW, it was the main topic of my table at the Board breakfast. Board
members even suggested the informal name "pussycat" domains (1) to describe
applications that would qualify for the "express lane", so to speak, Kurt
Pritz was at my table and did not provide any counter arguments. It seems
possible that this is indeed worth advancing.
There was an acknowledgement that, while this may have been a ninstarter
before, there have been sufficient lessons learned from previous application
rounds. ICANN now has a better idea of the criteria that could indicate an
express-worthy application.

- Evan

(1) -- not to ebe confused with the TLD, ".pussy", which will probably not
qualify for express treatment.
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann...

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac

Seems like a good idea.

BTW, I got back my laptop last night from DELL Korea so I'm in catch-up mode
here. I just didn't see the mail inviting us to the Board breakfast, which
is why I was absent.

Carlton

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 7:28 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> For a long time, I have been advocating not trying to solve all of the gTLD
> problems but rather releasing categories of gTLDs where the problems can be
> readily addressed (either because of the type of gTLD or because the
> applicant is willing to agree to sepecific measures to address the potential
> problems.
>
> This has typically been a VERY unpopular position to take in public.
>
> At this meeting, in both public and private discussions, the concept is
> receiving wide acceptance.
>
> Is there an interest in quickly putting forth a position that we advocate
> such methodology and are willing to work with other parts of ICANN to put in
> place such categories and allow ICANN to QUICKLY allow applications for some
> classes of TLDs (and I would support including IDN and small cultural TLDs
> as well as city TLD (the latter only if they are willing to put in place
> strong controls to inhibit abuse).
>
> Alan
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann...
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
>
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann...

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac