[gnso-idn-wg] Re: 4.1.1 Support & Alternate Views

["Ram Mohan" <rmohan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Olof:

 

There seems to be enough support to convert the following to a Support
statement.

--

Support: resolve IDN policy issues before launch of application round.



--

What is the WG view on Sophia's suggested modification to 4.1.1:

 

Support for a first application round open to both non-IDN gTLDs and 
IDN gTLDs, if possible, as long as the IDN criteria setting process is
completed.

 

--

Is there continued support for this statement, or should this become an
Alternate View?

 

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

 

Regards,

Ram

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Sophia B
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 10:01 PM
To: gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx; GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-idn-wg] Comment on: 4.1 Introduction of IDN gTLDs in relation
to new non-IDN gTLDs

 

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