Re: [gnso-idng] phone question

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri Doria wrote:
> ... I personally would be against giving some special application status to ...

On the call you observed twice that in theory all things are equal. 
That interested me.
Please explain how ...

intentionally failing to distinguish between applicants which 
presently met all technical requirements, a more stringent existence, 
as well as security and stability test than mere possession of an 
iso3166-1 associated delegation into the IANA root, and those which 
have not met any technical requirements,
and

intentionally failing to distinguish between applicants which 
presently met all business requirements, a more stringent existence, 
as well as continuity test than mere possession of an iso3166-1 
associated delegation into the IANA root, and those which have not met 
any business requirements,
and

intentionally failing to distinguish between applicants which seek to 
obtain one or more non-Latin Script equivalences to an existing Latin 
Script entry in the IANA root, exactly as the ccTLD IDN FT 
participants are seeking,
and

intentionally failing to distinguish between applicants which have 
existing non-Latin IDN registrants, and those which have no registrants,
and

intentionally failing to distinguish between applicants which have 
existing abusive registration policies and those which have no 
registrants,
and

intentionally failing to distinguish between applicants which have no 
substantial abusive registrations, and those which have substantial 
abusive registrations,
helps arrive at a "is not disadvantaged" position.

While I take the point you made later in the call that diversity is 
not met by allocating IDNs to existing registry contract holders, the 
converse, that no IDN shall be created until a diversity goal amongst 
contract holders, or more weakly, until a N+1 registry contract 
exists, where N is the number of current registry contracts (counting 
.post), places the utility of IDN below the utility of diversity of 
contract holders, or the utility of creating an N+1th contract.
Is this why we have IDNs? To force the N+1th contract? To force the 
first contract outside of North America and Europe? I don't think so.
Eric