CircleID

I compose this comment from the ICANN meetings in Capetown, South Africa while attending these meetings.

There have been such great strides made in the area of IDN standards and in the area of IDNA over the past many years.

There have also been many splitered technologies put in place to attempt to capitalize on .IDN TLDs.

There are two primary points that need to be addressed.

Standards have been designed, discussed, evolved, and drafted over a multi-year process, and those standards are still taking hold in their implimentation in any practical sense.

Until there is more adaptation of IDNA within applications to where native language becomes more pervasive in use, it might be wise to capture what has been learned and use that data to derive future steps in .IDN implimentations.

I opine that dilution and confusion can occur to create IDN versions of existing TLDs and delegate them to parties other than the encumbent operator, but caveat that opinion in that these registries MUST work to ensure some form of responsible variant technology be put in place.

The concern I voice in this opinion is these native language .IDN versions of say, for example .INFO being delegated to anyone other than the .INFO operator, could open the door to having the registration 产品.INFO ("product" in Simplified Chinese) being potentially diluted by the registration of 产品.信息.