Re: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Edmon Chung wrote:
...

> Edmon: I think Avri you probably mistook the idea... I think what Chuck and
> I were talking about is NOT about translation at the second level.  But
> offering the same string to the same registrant under an IDN TLD.
...

In the scenario I've in mind, and unlike Chuck I can't speak for the 
registry, only the operator, registrants having pre-validated and 
having used any string, Latin or other, for a SLD or subordinate 
registration, are also pre-validated for that, or any other string for 
which the pre-validation requirements are capable of being satisfied, 
in a non-Latin registry, with the same policy.
So the set:
name-in-ldh.tld-in-ldh,
name-in-idn.tld-in-ldh,
name-in-ldh.tld-in-idn, and
name-in-idn.tld-in-idn
all have a common registrant.

While it is true that translation et seq offers wiggle room, the 
formal names of the registrant in pick-a-script does not, and that is 
the basis for the registration in any script, independent of the 
script present in the tld string.
Eric