Re: [gnso-idn-wg] Comment on: 4.1 Introduction of IDN gTLDs in relation to new non-IDN gTLDs

["Maniam s" <maniam01@xxxxxxxxx>]

Given that we have watched ICANN since 1999/2000 and that it will still
take a year or more to launch, that will be a decade for implementation,
with many mis-steps along the way. So I see little reason why we should
not wait a little longer and finalise all IDN policy critera before
either reserving or awarding new IDN gTLDs. I support the changes being
proposed.

Regards
Maniam

On 3/19/07, Yoav Keren <yoav@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  Sophia and Charles are both right in not allowing the reservation of the
> IDN gtld string beforehand.  This could create more issues and confusion. It
> should be rejected. We should simply finish all IDN policy criteria and
> ongoing IDN testing even if it means the ASCII gTLD round has to go first,
> and resulting in some relatively small negative impact on later IDN awards
> (eg. reserved names etc).
>
> Therefore I think we should either delete the sentence: "Support for
> options to reserve IDN gTLD strings in case the first application round can
> only address non-IDN gTLD applications fully. ", or change it to an
> alternative view, and change the statement of: "resolve IDN policy issues
> before launch of  application round" to either support or agreement.
>
>
>
> Yoav
>   ------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] *On
> Behalf Of *Sophia B
> *Sent:* Monday, March 19, 2007 4:01 AM
> *To:* gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx; GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [gnso-idn-wg] Comment on: 4.1 Introduction of IDN gTLDs in
> relation to new non-IDN gTLDs
>
>
>
> 4.1.1
>
> Support for a first application round open to both non-IDN gTLDs and
> IDN gTLDs, if possible.
>
>     -- I support this but, I recommend we add a wording "as long as the
> IDN
>       criteria setting process is completed".
>
> Support for options to reserve IDN gTLD strings in case the first
> application round can only address non-IDN gTLD applications fully.
>
>
>    --This gets tricky.  As Charles Shaban mentioned in a similar view, I
>       think an option to reserve is a bad option, since there is no
>       rule for reserving and leaves to bias.  This actually would suggest
> an
>       entire policy development process.  Who is to decide for
>       reserving/wait listing?  An IDN policy criteria should be
>       finalised before embarking on any reservation or application of
>       strings. I cannot see any benefit for having a reserve process
>       beforehand, and only see potential confusion.
>
> Alternative view: resolve IDN policy issues before launch of  application
> round.
>
>     --I think we should move this Alternative View to a *'Support' level,*since
>
>       like Shaban I categorically think that IDN Policy criteria needs to
> be set
>
>       before we start considering IDN deployment. If the problem is that
> further
>
>       ASCII gTLD rounds will be delayed because of some limited overlap
>
>       between IDN policy and non-ASCII new GTLD policy,  I would rather
> take our
>
>       chances and go ahead with ASCII gTLD applications ahead of IDN
>
>       applications/reservations despite any limited cross-impact.  Anyway,
> I
>
>       can accept  an alternative view, but I would like to see if there is
> more
>
>       SUPPORT or AGREEMENT.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Sophia