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

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Eric,

I also think there is utility in consistency, which speaks to user
expectations as well.

As for #2, no, I am not talking about DNAME.  I think separate NS
delegations at the root make sense.  What I am talking about is for example,
registries serving the same zonefile for their IDN TLDs or setup policies
where for example only the registrant for <DOMAINinIDN>.asciiTLD can
register <DOMAINinIDN>.idnTLD.

Hi Chuck,

What I mean is the following:
- If "asciiTLD" Registry applies for "idnTLD"
- And another Prospective Registry objects the application because it is
interested to apply for idnTLD OR idnTLD2 (which is similar to idnTLD)
- Then "asciiTLD" and "idnTLD" should be submitted to evaluation on whether
they should be considered confusingly similar
- If they are determined to be confusingly similar (especially in the
context of them being used as a TLD),
        - THEN it also means that in any case the Prospective Registry would
not be able to apply for it anyway in the new gTLD round
        - THEREFORE it is not unreasonable to conclude that "asciiTLD"
Registry application should continue to proceed
- If however they are determined NOT to be confusingly similar
        - THEN it means that it is possible for the Prospective Registry to
apply for the string in the new gTLD round
        - THEREFORE the both the applications from "asciiTLD" Registry and
the Prospective Registry should be considered
        - THEREFORE it will require evaluation of the Prospective Registry
application as well as potentially some contention resolution mechanism,
which means it needs to go into a different process.

Wonder if this makes sense...

Edmon




> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams
> Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2009 10:12 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Edmon Chung; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] restarting discussions on IDN gTLD
> 
> 
> Edmon, Chuck,
> 
> I continue to think that there is utility in communication between IDN
> implementing parties transcends contractual regimes, and this utility
> is not limited to consistent character set tables across multiple
> instances of each implemented script.
> 
> Additionally, the rate of change to the IANA root is a resource
> constraint which transcends contractual regimes.
> 
> It seems to me that a policy rational exists for IDN deployment taking
> priority over non-IDN deployment, co-existing with a policy rational
> for underserved populations taking priority over adequately served
> populations.
> 
> I'm puzzled by your #2, but that may be some of the DNAME vs NS
> discussion, applied to ASCII and non-ASCII labels offered by the same
> operator -- though there was discussion of the equivalent between the
> four CDNC members back in 2001, so cooperation, a kind of "mirroring"
> was considered between distinct registry operators, for SC/TC
> management reasons.
> 
> Eric