Was the below discussed:
>> Why are you ducking the question?
>>KURT PRITZ: I think it's a good answer. I think if the IDN fast track is implemented, that would essentially take away any reason for not having IDNs be part of the gTLD round.
>>KHALED FATTAL: (inaudible).
>>KURT PRITZ: I think the scribes need the microphone. I know you don't.
>>KHALED FATTAL: Assuming that the fast tracking does actually fast track it, would that imply that the recommendations that are being sought to be implemented would apply for IDNs as well?
>>KURT PRITZ: Can you ask that question again, exactly the same.
>>KHALED FATTAL: You didn't hear it? I'm sorry.
One more time.
Assuming these recommendations are accepted and based on the question that was asked just now, and assuming also that the fast tracking does deliver the promised land so fast -- you can quote me on that in the teleprompting -- would that imply that the current recommendations would apply to IDNs, yes or no?
>> (Inaudible).
>>KHALED FATTAL: To future IDN applications. Assuming we can fast-track them.
>>KURT PRITZ: I think it would apply to all gTLD applications, you know, whether they're ASCII or IDN.
>>KHALED FATTAL: You can go on the record for that one?
>>KURT PRITZ: No. Adrienne asked my opinion.
>>KHALED FATTAL: I'm asking. Is this -- would you say this is a position from ICANN, our official position from ICANN one thing being recommended will be applied on IDN gTLDs as well.
>>KURT PRITZ: Yes.
>>KHALED FATTAL: That's a "yes." That answers the question.
From:
https://delhi.icann.org/files/Delhi-GNSO-WS-9Feb08.txt