Re: [gnso-idn-wg] Addition to Section 4.2.1

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

assuming the following is the suggested language (i may have lost track)

> > > > > Support for considering and not penalising any pioneering,
> > > > > pre-existing
> > > > > developments regarding IDN gTLDs with widespread language  
> > > > > community
> > > > > support,

i support this first phrase

> > > > > for example, the experimental IDN system run
> > > > > by the Arab
> > > > > League, China and other countries in a smaller scale when
> > > > > considering
> > > > > introduction of new IDN gTLDs, to avoid potential confusion/ 
> > > > > backlash.


i don't support singling out any particular pre-existing developments  
because i don't think we have gone through all the necessary criteria  
for deciding which pioneering/pre-existing efforts get what level of  
consideration.

i also think we should give them consideration not out of fear of  
confusion or backlash, but because running code should be considered  
anytime we think of designing new code.  and if it works and is  
compatible with the principles of ICANN then is should get due  
consideration.

Alternate:

Support for considering and not penalising any pioneering, pre- 
existing developments regarding IDN gTLDs with widespread language  
community support.  Also recommend that ICANN support any such  
efforts that are in keeping with its  principles and goals and which  
are in current use by established language communities.


a.