Comments on Module 2

[David Allen <David_Allen_AB63@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

2.1.1.1  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.

2.1.1.3.2 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

Co-Principal
Collab CPR

Concord MA
USA