Re: [gnso-idng] RE: same string registered at 2nd level across different IDN gTLDs [RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs]

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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 
extended evaluations.

Do something, specific to the string consequence of plurality, so that 
the string consequence of plurality is not failure prior to any 
extended evaluations.

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.
Eric