Hrm.
We know that the GNSO has the power to compel the Board, but is the opposite true? In the absence of GNSO action can the Board act on its own? (ie, to create a special round of IDN gTLDs)?
This could be one of those times where the public interest differs from that of the current domain buyer-seller cartel. The GNSO's lack of consensus does not render this a bad idea.
So, Olivier, you say that the ICANN Board is less of a slave to vested interests than in years past ... here's a chance to demonstrate it. Is it capable of reasonably debating the public-interest and readiness issues related to an IDN-only round in the absence
of GNSO approval?
And then Jonathan said:
IDN gTLDs present extremely complex problems with respect to variants at both the top and second levels. This is becoming painfully clear to the IDN ePDP working group which has been tackling these issues now for quite some time
and still has a long way to go.
We already have enough IDN TLDs now in the wild to be able to collect useful data on whether or not they are (on the balance) more useful or troublesome in their current state. Without pausing on work to address the challenges, surely there must be a way to
determine if an IDN round is worthwhile given the current state of the tech and policy.
The current status -- too much is still broken in IDN gTLDs but they're still safe to delegate -- is confusing to say the least. Either they're useful enough to do now (and Goran is correct) or they're not (and Goran is aspirational, and all IDN rollouts need
to pause till the bugs are fixed.).