Re: [alac] Updated terms of reference for IDN-gTLDs policy development

[shahshah@xxxxxxxx]

> John L ha scritto:
>> I agree that there is likely to be a land grab by VRSN and the other
>> GTLD registries, but it was my impression that some of the ccTLDs want
>> an equivalent of their ccTLD in their own language and character set.
>
> I think that all these requests should be evaluated case by case. While
> I see the reason for having a Chinese script equivalent of .cn in the
> root (as soon as ccTLDs start selling domains in their own script, they
> will need a final string in their script too), and I see the reason for
> forbidding graphical equivalents to existing TLDs (but there's no need
> to reserve them in advance: whenever a new gTLD application is
> submitted, it will be evaluated whether the proposed strings could be
> confused with any existing ones), I don't see the reason for awarding
> Verisign with all words meaning "company" or "commercial" in all
> languages and scripts...
>
> In any case, differently from second level registration, first level
> registration (of new gTLDs) is never going to be an automated process,
> so problems of confusion could be evaluated each time according to an
> established policy, rather than addressed in advance by reserving strings.
> --
> vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
> http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
>
I agree. Recently Hong and I had a discussion about whether a separate PDP
for IDN gTLDs should be developed. It seems to me that there are so many
considerations and such a variety of cases that it is futile to try to
develop a PDP for IDN gTLDs that covers most cases. The best thing is to
apply the same general principles and give plenty of time for possible
stakeholders and affected parties to comment, and then treat each case
individually.
Siavash