Re: [gnso-idng] RE: same string registered at 2nd level across different IDN gTLDs [RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs]
- To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] RE: same string registered at 2nd level across different IDN gTLDs [RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs]
- From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 11:09:57 -0500
So far the proposals have been:
Do nothing, supported by various claims that doing anything will have
adverse outcomes, or the lack of a guarantee that doing anything will
have beneficial outcomes.
Do nothing, because the plurality of applications will fail, due to
the string consequence of plurality, and the failure cured through
Do something, specific to the string consequence of plurality, so that
the string consequence of plurality is not failure prior to any
Do something, generally about plurality, not restricted to the string
consequence of plurality, so that the general consequence of plurality
is not silent failure.
The first two positions have their advocate, and the third is the only
one which "is IDN", and the fourth clearly anticipates meaningful
interaction with ICANN staff with a goal of reducing the cost of the
evaluation process, costs that arise for duplicated work, and from
avoidable work that must be performed at present, and additional work
to cure evaluation errors made through information avoidance.
The question of charter and flexibility is germane to the Council, but
not to any actual project to address either the 3rd, or the 4th of
these alternatives. That is, personally, I've an observer's interest
in the GNSOC's work product, whether a repudiation of prior policy, or
its affirmation after a change of circumstances. In effecting change
to the evaluation process to reduce cost I've a non-observer interest.
This interest is likely shared by ccTLD registry operators which
intend to provide registry services for an application for a gTLD,
when and if these are accepted in the still rather murky future.
My interest is in opening door number 4, though door number 3 is a
reasonable choice as well.