RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think I disagree with that interpretation.  The discussion in the IDN WG
was whether existing gTLDs should be given presumptive priority or not, and
that discussion led to them not given presumptive priority.  Whether a
mechanism to allow for the processing of such application WITHOUT
presumptive priority could be implemented is left open.

The policies also talk about confusingly similar strings.  But what is not
included is whether a registry (whether existing or future) could thereupon
apply for a confusingly similar string to its own TLD.  That is the part
which I think requires some implementation attention for IDN gTLDs.

The problem is not whether they are considered separate applications, but
whether there should be a different way to process it given that the string
applied for is in fact confusingly similar to a particular TLD.

Edmon


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 1:35 PM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs
> 
> 
> 
> 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.