[RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs]

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Eric,

I am not as pessimistic as you are I think... :-)
There are plenty of people around the world interested in IDN (including IDN 
gTLDs), and there (I believe) are enough people in the ICANN community who 
believe in the value of IDN gTLDs for the Internet as a global space.

In hopes of avoiding the original message being lost in the chain of emails, 
here were my thoughts sent earlier under this subject:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Edmon Chung
> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 6:21 AM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs
> 
> 
> Seems like there are a few important things to clarify/identify to move 
> towards a
> constructive discussion on this.  Most importantly, "timing" seems to be a key
> cause for concern.
> 
> Two clarifications which may be useful:
> 
> 1. Not talk about "FAST" track but rather talk about IDN gTLDs in general and
> whether the DAG (so far) is sufficient
> 
> 2. Not talk about "TRACKs" in the sense that they may be launched at different
> times, but just that certain processes would be conducted differently
> 
> And some observations:
> 
> A. Currently the DAG only contemplates completely new IDN gTLDs which are
> unassociated with existing (or future gTLDs)
> 
> B. There is clear interest (including from the user community and the 
> registries
> admittedly) to offer a consistent continuum for full IDN experience with 
> tightly
> integrated IDN gTLDs (e.g. that an IDN gTLD would run the same zonefile as
> another gTLD, OR that an IDN gTLD would offer 2LDs only to the same registrant
> as another bundled gTLD)
> 
> - Is it possible to distinguish between A and B?
> - Would the implementation process look different between A and B?
> - It seems clear that for A, confusingly similar strings should not be 
> acceptable,
> but for B, it may be entirely the opposite
> - Can an implementation for B be added alongside A?
> 
> Edmon
> 
> 
> PS. Both A and B can be ongoing and B would apply to future new gTLDs as well
> as existing gTLDs.




> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams
> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 8:10 AM
> To: Edmon Chung
> Cc: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs
> 
> 
> 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