Ram,
OK, noted, will enter that.
/Olof
------------------------------
*From:* owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] *On
Behalf Of *Ram Mohan
*Sent:* den 19 mars 2007 22:25
*To:* 'Sophia B'; gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx; 'GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
*Subject:* [gnso-idn-wg] Re: 4.1.1 Support & Alternate Views
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