[gnso-idng] restarting discussions on IDN gTLD

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Everyone,

As mentioned in the wrap up session in Seoul, would like to restart this 
conversation.

I think it has now become somewhat apparent that the full new gTLD process will 
be delayed for a while and that there will be a good gap between when we will 
see IDN ccTLDs and when we might see IDN gTLDs (especially if we do not do 
something about it).  Furthermore, there has been growing discussion / interest 
in having separate "tracks" for certain "categories".  So it seems to me that 
the time for this discussion for IDN gTLDs is becoming mature...

Anyway, the basic situation, based on my observation, perhaps could be 
described as follows:
- there is definite interest in having IDN gTLDs as soon as possible
- there is user expectation (among other reasons) that as IDN ccTLDs are 
available IDN gTLDs also work
- IDN gTLDs, like IDN ccTLDs are new TLDs, as new gTLDs, the same overarching 
issues (not resolved for the full process) may apply
- Full IDN experience (i.e. including the TLD) is important for users and the 
adoption of IDN
- IDN TLD is an important undertaking for ICANN in promoting multilingualism 
and IDN gTLDs should be one of the priorities of ICANN work
- From the press coverage received (and the great enthusiasm and discussions at 
the IGF) regarding the release of IDN ccTLDs, there is public demand (or at 
least interest) on having IDN TLDs

Based on the above, I can think of 2 possible options or tracks:

1. to break out the discussion focused on IDN gTLDs and address the overarching 
issues specifically for the introduction of IDN gTLDs
- open the application process for all IDN gTLD strings
- identify the relevant issues and propose a solution focused on IDN gTLDs
- work in parallel with the full new gTLD process (or other tracks for that 
matter) and bring about a process independent of the full new gTLD process 
discussion (i.e. may happen to be completed sooner than, at the same time, or 
later than the full new gTLD process)

2. to have a special track for IDN gTLDs that would "mirror" existing gTLDs
- existing gTLDs will apply and commit to essentially run the same zonefile (or 
offer the same name for registration to the existing registrant) as the IDN 
gTLD, providing full IDN experience for gTLDs
- existing gTLDs will have to apply through a process and be subjected to 
objections
- objections can be raised by potential applicants for the same name (or a 
similar name forming a contention set with the applied for IDN gTLD)
- where objection arise, the IDN gTLD string will be submitted for evaluation 
on whether it is confusingly similar to the existing ASCII gTLD
- if it is determined to be confusingly similar, then the application stands; 
if it is determined to be NOT confusingly similar, then the application is 
punted to 1. above or the full new gTLD process
- IDN gTLDs can be added to existing gTLD contracts

The 2 options need not be mutually exclusive.  In fact, Option 2 may actually 
be good as an ongoing process (after the new round of gTLDs and as they become 
interested in augmenting their ASCII gTLD with an accompanying IDN gTLD, and as 
new languages are added for any gTLD for that matter).

These are probably not the only options, but just want to get this discussion 
started again :-)... and of course there is option 3 which is do nothing for 
IDN gTLDs.

Looking forward to your thoughts.

Edmon