ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Comments on Module 2

  • To: 2gtld-evaluation@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Comments on Module 2
  • From: David Allen <David_Allen_AB63@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:30:56 -0400  String Confusion Objection:

Only visual similarity can lead to confusion (can you even _say_ the word in another person's language? - if not, you cannot be confused aurally). That would seem to be common sense, which we need much more evidence of here. And this was one of the points almost universally agreed by the GNSO IDN Working Group a couple years ago. That is the sort of consensus that ICANN has found in the shortest supply. If it has pretense to be a global organization, best it foster, then adopt, consensus given to it so generously by other's work. String requirements:

Restricting strings to a minimum of three characters only blatantly underlines the West-centric powers trying to control outcomes in ICANN. Ideographic languages are much more economical in their use of characters. Is there some hope that ICANN will move beyond its Anglo roots?

2.2.1 Techncial Exchange:

Is it not the height of West-centeredness to limit exchange only to that comfortable for those who use the Western language?

David Allen

Collab CPR

Concord MA

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy