Re: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Edmond,

First, I don't know that constructive discussion is possible.

There's the criticisms that are being used to stall gTLDs in general.

There's the criticisms that anything will have at best an adverse outcome.

The first interest is that all applications block. The second is that 
all applications block until some condition, and in the absence of 
that condition being specific, and "none before others" is not a 
specific condition, the second reduces to the first.
This is grand if one isn't wedded to gTLD registry operations, as 
jointly and separately, these amount to no new gTLD registries, and 
one can operate ccTLD registries, whether ASCII or IDN or both.
Second, I don't know that the GNSO Council statements of policy as 
recent as 16 months ago, statements I've watched developed and 
uttered, and at GNSO Council meetings, at joint GNSO ccNSO Councils 
meetings, on the subject of IDN and advantage, aren't junk.
Third, the RyC, now RySG, has been unwilling to allow registry 
operators, as well as applicants, do more than "observe" the RyC's, 
now RySG's formation of policy directly affecting operators and new 
registry applicants. That some RySG observers now seek to prevent the 
RySG's members from obtaining new delegations, albeit IDN delegations, 
before RySG observers, seems to be pre-planned failure of constructive 
discussion.
Fourth, of course the DAG views all applications in isolation, you and 
I both spoke to Peter and Paul at the Delhi RyC meeting on the subject 
and they were fixated on the $185k per and as dense as stones and 
couldn't be made to think about operational issues. This problem 
hasn't gone away in the intervening 20 months.
My suggestion is to try and get some fundamentals fixed.

What is the offer from th RySG members to the RySG observers for 
policy, now and in the three years the IDN PDP(s) are expected to 
take? If nothing, expect about that much success. In 2000 NetSol (now 
VGRS) allowed the noses of the NeuStar and Afilias and Register policy 
camels inside the tent before those parties had contracts with ICANN.
What is the GNSO Council's position _now_ on advantage? If nothing, 
then that's the Council support for whatever this list-or-WG comes up 
with.
What conditions, of the generally stalling, or specifically 
preconditioning parties, are subject to test, and which, if any, 
application could test if these conditions are brought in good faith?
I'm sure constructive discussion is possible, but it may only be so if 
the discussion is technical, or the anticipated date of application 
for any new delegation, other than a ccTLD IDN FT, is very forward 
looking, closer to 2020 than 2010.
I've spent a lot of time writing, and on Wednesday I look forward to 
mostly listening.
Eric