suggestion about addressing broadened discussions and understanding about IDNs

[Marilyn Cade <mscade@xxxxxxx>]

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