separate policy processes for ASCII and IDN TLDs
The draft questions and draft staff paper suggest that implementation of ASCII TLDs and IDN TLDs will be carried out by the same process. I believe this would be a mistake and strongly suggest that processes for the implementation of ASCII TLDs and IDN TLDs should be separated. Both are equally important and neither can be delayed.
The addition of ASCII TLDS is a known and straight-forward process and is ready for implementation of predictable, transparent, and objective procedures.
IDN gTLDs raise some new technical problems and policy concerns. However the need for IDN gTLDs great and implementation must begin as soon as possible so as to gain operational experience and to work through problems as they come along. Therefore, clear rules and procedures for applying to operate internationalised top-level domains coupled with open and transparent processes for making selections should be established quickly. This is a very different situation from that of ASCII TLDS.
While ICANN should guide the process for the implementation of IDNs, language communities must be encouraged and supported to take the lead in developing policy for the implementation of IDNs. If we are to learn anything from the lessons offered by WSIS and WGIG it should be that a northern dominated forum such as the GNSO must not make policy for the rest of the world to follow. New, more inclusive policy processes must be developed --quickly-- for IDNs.
The expeditious implementation of both ASCII and IDN TLDs is equally important, and a rapid and parallel process for implementation of both is needed. The separation of processes must not become a reason for delaying the implementation of either ASCII or IDN TLDs.
Adam Peake GLOCOM Tokyo