Re: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

On 29 Nov 2009, at 17:20, Edmon Chung wrote:

> 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)


These were conceived of from the first in the GNSO Council discussions.  It was 
just decided not to give them special status.

Isn't it just an attribute of some application that someone says they wish to 
tightly couple, same or similar zoneflle, them to existing gTLDs they are the 
registry of?  I am sure that some people have had it in mind since day 1, but 
whenever it was spoken of, it was considered not salient to the application 
process or to priority within that process.

And even in a parallel case where some people wanted to apply for a new gTLD 
with tight coupling between an IDN and a LDH, that was considered as irrelevant 
and requiring two separate applications.

So I would say that the current set of conditions in DAG in this respect does 
correspond to what was intended in the policy recommendation.

a.