[gnso-idn-wg] Comment on: 4.1 Introduction of IDN gTLDs in relation to new non-IDN gTLDs

["Sophia B" <sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx>]

4.1.1
Support for a first application round open to both non-IDN gTLDs and
IDN gTLDs, if possible.

   -- I support this but, I recommend we add a wording "as long as the IDN
     criteria setting process is completed".

Support for options to reserve IDN gTLD strings in case the first
application round can only address non-IDN gTLD applications fully.

  --This gets tricky.  As Charles Shaban mentioned in a similar view, I
     think an option to reserve is a bad option, since there is no
     rule for reserving and leaves to bias.  This actually would suggest an
     entire policy development process.  Who is to decide for
     reserving/wait listing?  An IDN policy criteria should be
     finalised before embarking on any reservation or application of
     strings. I cannot see any benefit for having a reserve process
     beforehand, and only see potential confusion.

Alternative view: resolve IDN policy issues before launch of  application
round.

   --I think we should move this Alternative View to a *'Support' level,*since
     like Shaban I categorically think that IDN Policy criteria needs to be
set
     before we start considering IDN deployment. If the problem is that
further
     ASCII gTLD rounds will be delayed because of some limited overlap
     between IDN policy and non-ASCII new GTLD policy,  I would rather take
our
     chances and go ahead with ASCII gTLD applications ahead of IDN
     applications/reservations despite any limited cross-impact.  Anyway, I

     can accept  an alternative view, but I would like to see if there is
more
     SUPPORT or AGREEMENT.

Regards,
Sophia