RE: [gnso-idng] restarting discussions on IDN gTLD

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Edmon,

How do you plan to proceed with this?  It is very late to add it to the
agenda for Monday, 23 Nov, but you could possibly bring it up under AOB.
If you decide to do that, it would be helpful to have an approach in
mind that the Council could at least comment on.

In your option 2 below, I don't understand  "- 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"

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung
> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 10:31 PM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-idng] restarting discussions on IDN gTLD
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>