On 12 July 2012 16:53, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


> Of course if you and MM are right, and no one in their right mind would
> want one of these things anyway, then it might be a waste of time.
>


Remember, even I am not saying that need is zero.

   - There is a desperate need for at least one, and best maybe a few,
   gTLDs, in each IDN script.

   - It would be nice if there was a registry or two that did not need to
   make money directly from selling 2LDs and might give them away for free
   (though with the entry of Google and others that may indeed happen) -- THAT
   is the "business model innovation" this world really needs, not more
   approaches to speculative, duplicate and defensive registrations.

   - A few with higher levels of security/accountability than existing
   policy requires might be nice (ie for financial transactions)

These needs could be accomplished easily by adding double (or maybe triple)
the gTLDs that now exist. Anything beyond that is vanity, needless
duplication, confusion and challenges to both providers and consumers of
Internet services without any adding of value. More phone books without
more phones. And yes, I would toss in this "vanity" lot, most geographic
and community TLDs.


> And especially in the IDN space which is integrated with the rest of the
> gTLD program, i remain unconvinced.
>

In that specific instance I agree with you fully. It's a standing issue
with ALAC to get IDN applications processed first regardless of whatever
batching/prioritization is used for the rest. We (well, Carlton) stated
that at the Public Forum and At-Large will continue to push for this.

- Evan