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>]

Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> Note that this is a draft charter that I don't think even this group ever 
> agreed on.  If I am incorrect on this, please correct me.

That is my understanding Chuck. I was surprised (and pleased) that 
ICANN's conference bridge was available, and staff were available for 
the call.
I'm glad the CDNC group appears to have also had the same assistance, 
to draw a conclusion from Edmond's initial remarks during the call.
So, I don't think the participants of the "JIG" ever rejected the idea 
of a cross-SO project, which is different from a joint session in that 
 any ccTLD operator may also intend to apply, directly or through a 
3rd party, for a gTLD IDN, an interest absent in the joint meetings 
(though there are gTLD operators who also operate ccTLD registries).
I also don't think the participants of the IDNG, a sort of post-JIG 
label on some of the same people, ever expressed a consensus on what 
ideas or issues it will work on.
We could, for instance, answer the question asked, which, if any, of 
the "four overarching issues" are materially different for IDNs?
Steve's made the point that the IPR issue is materially different for 
non-Latin IDNs. That leaves the economic analysis issue, the maleware 
issue, and the security and stability issue to be investigated.
We could, for instance, answer the implicit question of what "no 
disadvantage" means when there is a concrete implementation schedule 
for the ccTLD IDN FT applicants, and therefore a concrete operator 
availability of scripts schedule.
We could, for instance, answer a more GNSO centered question, 
independent of the script choices and availability dates of the ccNSO 
members participating in the ccTLD IDN FT, and make independent script 
availability recommendations.
These all could be left to the two SO PDP activities, but those could 
take several years to reach their respective conclusions.
So, I think there's no charter at present.

Eric