suggestion about addressing broadened discussions and understanding about IDNs
I do not support creating a constituency on IDNs within the GNSO. That is in fact a very narrow and restrictive approach that would also be limited to the GNSO space. As I understand the interest, and the importance of addressing IDNS, overall, within the ICANN community, a constituency would be a relatively narrow approach, focused and limited in focus to GNSO activities, and also creating confusion about existing constituencies members ability to participate in a new single purpose constituency, while also maintaining the broader purpose constituencies already in existence. However, on the other hand, I understand the importance of having a broad, diverse, and informed 'space' for discussion about IDNs overall, including how IDNs can be progressed in both ccTLD and gTLD space. This is not a negative statement about the importance of IDNs; indeed, I am quite convinced that much more work is needed within ICANN on this important area, including advancing IDNA; examining how coexistence with ASCII TLDs happens; and how processes addressing trademarks, abusive use of registered names, etc. are established in a stable and predictable framework. I have even suggested that ICANN should make IDNs the priority; not vast numbers of new ASCII gTLDs. However, a constituency within the GNSO is not actually going to achieve the breadth or scope of work and focus that is needed. It could in fact be a diversion from that much needed focus. IDNs need a cross ICANN 'forum' approach, especially with the importance of the role of ccTLDs and governments in this expanding frontier of policy and standards work. Marilyn Cade speaking as an individual |