Re: [gnso-idng] reporting back to the council

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck,

I began advocacy for community applications at the Los Angeles
meeting, with Werner, as observers. I was, and remain appreciative for
the opportunities the then Council Chair, Avri, provided us to
participate.

I wrote that paragraph to point out that the substantive issue you and
Avri differ on is not the example. If I had appreciated, from the
perspective of a Council member, which is more than observing three
times a year and reviewing minutes and infrequently the audio, the
full import of any example, I'd never have offered one.

The difference of opinion you and Avri share has been conducted only
in a small part within my cognizance. As important as it is to each of
you, and others, there does not appear to be any point to the gnso-idn
activity.

There won't be any temporal parity with the ccTLD IDN FT.

There won't be any temporal priority for IDN new gTLDs relative to
non-IDN new gTLDs.

There simply won't be any gnso-idn anything, just whatever eventually
happens.

And for those of use with multiple applications, yes, we are paying
both for all of our average competitors, and if we are spending a bean
on policy, paying for our competitors who don't waste a bean on
policy. We can sneak that into the Latin+non-Latin application
scenario of waste and non-cost-recovery, but, speaking for CORE, we
never thought our cost would be reduced, only that if Staff were aware
most of our applications were identical, they could put the fee to
better use than checking, again and again and again, if CORE could run
a registry.

This is slim pickings for the better part of a year of work. I'll ask
Glen to remove my address from the mailing list.

Eric