RE: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-idng] motion for IDNG WG formation

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Let's put this on the agenda of the BC to discuss with a detailed discussion 
among business users.  
I am not yet convinced that the BC should endorse a fast track for IDN gTLDs. 
While I support prioritizing the work on IDNs overall, I note that the BC 
position is that we do not support vast numbers of new gTLDs. And there is 
clearly more work to be done on policy for IDNs.  I am on the record as 
supporting the fast track ccTLD but have made it clear that this is a pilot. 
I am not at all sure that I understand the view being stated that there is an 
'unfair' advantage for ccTLDs over gTLDs. This is too simplistic a view.  I 
hope we can all recall that even if we have domaineers and registry applicants 
in the BC membership that the purpose of the BC is to represent business users. 
 
I think that means that we need to actually 'learn more' about smes from 
developing countries as well as even the views of our own broader membership 
before jumping to a conclusion. 
This isn't a slam dunk. It seems to me that the BC needs to not just be 
informed by the views of the active few members, but to consider how it gets 
more informed input. 
Along those lines,   I wonder how much 'we' as business users presently 
understand of the cc's overall.   At one time, I organized interactions with 
the ccTLD managers on a number of issues and always learned a great deal about 
the challenges and unique situations that they face.  Some think that the cc's 
don't have WHOIS. Not the case.  In fact, an OECD study on that issue, that is 
now 'old' documented the variety of different models and services from the OECD 
cctlds.  
Because gTLD registries or even ASCII registry applicant candidates think of 
cctlds as competition, does not mean that business users, like the BC's members 
or businesses around the globe, should just accept that definition. 
In fact, the recent survey that I worked on on behalf of AT&T in developing the 
response to the lack an effective economic study by ICANN, showed some very 
interesting information about how even global business entities use ccTLDs, and 
frankly, it is not all defensive, even for the mini sample that we undertook 
for that contribution into the ICANN overarching issue public comment process. 
Business users are not only large global entities, but are often small 
companies, who do business within a country. This is in face, well represented 
in the BC's website as it breaks down the number of SMEs that are included in 
the associations who are BC members. 
I hesitate to speak FOR such parties, but note that conversations with the 
WITSA association members primarily include companies that are national or 
regional in focus, with SOME more membership from companies who have a global 
presence but a national office/presence. 
I note one point that we should use as a mantra as business users:  "Facts are 
our friend".  We presently lack facts. I am not sure we can get to an informed 
view. We may have to ask our councilors to 'abstain' with explanation, given 
the limited time ahead. 



> From: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-idng] motion for IDNG WG formation
> Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 07:06:02 -0700
> 
> 
> FYI the below string which clearly explains the motivation behind the 'fast
> track' IDN gTLD process that is proposed by the Registry Constituency, and
> sets forth a motion that Council will vote upon in Sydney. 
> 
> Personally, I think this is a good idea, and Chuck Gomes explains precisely
> why in his message below.  We should take appropriate steps to try to ensure
> that ccTLDs do not have undue advantage over gTLDs, particularly in the new
> world of IDN TLDs.
> 
> Please reply with comments, concerns, questions -- as the Councilors need to
> determine how to vote on this motion.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mike
> 
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> Rodenbaugh Law
> 548 Market Street
> San Francisco, CA  94104
> +1.415.738.8087
> www.rodenbaugh.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Adrian Kinderis
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 5:40 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Edmon Chung; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] motion for IDNG WG formation
> 
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to clarify Chuck.
> 
> I'll give it due consideration (i.e. sleep on it) and get back to you.
> 
> I think it is a slippery slope if you start this, however, in the scenario
> you suggest it could indeed be workable.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Adrian Kinderis
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, 3 June 2009 10:32 PM
> To: Adrian Kinderis; Edmon Chung; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] motion for IDNG WG formation
> 
> It's really not very complicated Adrian.
> 
> 1. The ideal approach for IDN TLDs is for both IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs to
> be launched at the same general time frame.  Two reasons for this
> are: 1) To avoid giving either IDN ccTLDs or IDN gTLDs a competitive
> advantage over the other for a service that has had pent-up demand for
> years; 2) to give businesses and organizations that provide services and/or
> products in multiple countries to have a choice between registering their
> names in either an IDN gTLD or in multiple IDN ccTLDs or both.  Regarding
> the latter, the Arab region is a good example; if I operate a business in
> multiple Arab countries, I may prefer to register my name in the Arabic
> script in one IDN gTLD rather than in multiple IDN ccTLDs; on the other
> hand, if I only operate my business in one Arab country, I might prefer to
> register it in the IDN ccTLD for that country.
> 
> 2. It now appears that IDN ccTLDs could be introduced significantly sooner
> than new gTLDs, so there could be a gap of 6 to 9 months between when IDN
> ccTLDs are implemented and when IDN gTLDs are implemented, assuming that IDN
> gTLDs are introduced as part of the overall new gTLD process as originally
> planned.
> 
> 3. In case #2 happens, we could close the gap by having an IDN gTLD fast
> tract process.
> 
> You are of course correct that the overarching issues and other unresolved
> new gTLD implementation issues apply to IDN gTLDs as well as to ASCII gTLDs.
> That is why any IDN gTLD fast track approach would have to address those
> issues.  There are probably multiple ways that could be handled; let me
> describe one possible scenario:  1) Let's assume that IDN ccTLDs are
> introduced by 1 January 2010; 2) let's also assume that the final DAG is
> approved in December 2009 as currently projected and that the minimum
> 4-month communication period starts then ; 3) an IDN gTLD fast track process
> could be implemented on 1 January 2010 just like the IDN ccTLD fast track
> process at the beginning of the communication period.  In this scenario, the
> final DAG would apply to any IDN gTLDs that are approved.  There of course
> could be different scenarios that would require other approaches but it does
> not seem unreasonable to think that processes could be developed to deal
> with them.
> 
> One question for you: Why should IDN ccTLDs get a first to market advantage
> over IDN gTLDs?
> 
> Regarding your last question, why should IDN gTLDs have a first to market
> advantage over ASCII gTLDs, I would say that it is much less of a market
> advantage when comparing IDN TLDs to ASCII TLDs than it is comparing IDN
> gTLDs to IDN ccTLDs.
> 
> Chuck
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 5:18 AM
>> To: Edmon Chung; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] motion for IDNG WG formation
>> 
>> 
>> I'm sorry. I still don't get it.
>> 
>> I'm sorry I haven't been available for phone calls particularly those 
>> that fall on or after midnight (as every one has lately, my bad).
>> 
>> Can someone please explain to me, in simple terms, why this needs to 
>> proposed?
>> 
>> I understand completely that IDN ccTLD's should not delay the launch 
>> of IDN new gTLD's however this seems somewhat superfluous to this 
>> issue. If the ccNSO et al take too long sorting out their fast track 
>> process so be it. Their loss. Go forth gTLD (IDN or otherwise)
>> 
>> Why should IDN new gTLD's be launched *prior* to ascii gTLD's as is 
>> being suggested? Why don't the exact issues that are retarding the 
>> release of ascii gTLD's (the four overarching issues plus others) 
>> apply to IDN gTLD's? Are IDN's not subject to trademarks like ascii 
>> gTLD's or will they not be subject to second level issues (as proposed 
>> by the GAC)? Will registrants like McDonald's still have to register 
>> in every script to protect their brand and ignore any clearing house 
>> suggestion as proposed in the IRT Report?
>> 
>> What am I missing here?
>> 
>> I merely don't understand the point of why IDN gTLD's should get 
>> special treatment when they aren't special at all. Why should IDN 
>> gTLD's have any first to market advantage over ascii gTLD's?
>> 
>> Apologies if I am covering ground that is well travelled but I am at a 
>> loss with the logic.
>> 
>> As it stands I will be suggested to my Constituency to vote against 
>> any such motion.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>>   
>> 
>> Adrian Kinderis
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung
>> Sent: Wednesday, 3 June 2009 6:29 PM
>> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [gnso-idng] motion for IDNG WG formation
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Everyone,
>> 
>> Below is a first stab at a possible motion to go with the IDNG 
>> charter.  Please take a look and make suggestions.
>> 
>> Edmon
>> 
>> 
>> ========================================
>> 
>> WHEREAS:
>> 
>> The ICANN community has been discussing issues related to IDN and IDN 
>> TLDs since 2000, and the ICANN board as early as September 2000 
>> recognized "that it is important that the Internet evolve to be more 
>> accessible to those who do not use the ASCII character set";
>> 
>> There is expressed demand from the community, especially from language 
>> communities around the world who do not use English or a Latin based 
>> script as a primary language, including the CJK (Chinese Japanese 
>> Korean) communities and the right-to-left directional script 
>> communities (e.g. Arabic, Hebrew, Persian, etc.), for advancing the 
>> introduction of Internationalized Top-Level Domains (IDN TLDs);
>> 
>> GNSO IDN WG successfully completed its outcomes report in March 2007 
>> and the GNSO Council approved the incorporation of its findings in the 
>> GNSO Final Report on the Introduction of New gTLDs in September 2007, 
>> describing policy requirements for the introduction of IDN gTLDs;
>> 
>> The community observes the successful development of the IDN ccTLD 
>> Fast Track based on the IDNC WG recommendations, and the ongoing 
>> progress for the Implementation of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process;
>> 
>> The implementation of the New gTLD process is ongoing and the schedule 
>> and development of the implementation should continue;
>> 
>> GNSO Council had made comments in response to the ccNSO-GAC Issues 
>> Report on IDN Issues, as well as in its comments on the IDNC WG Final 
>> Report expressed that "the introduction of IDN gTLDs or IDN ccTLDs 
>> should not be delayed because of lack of readiness of one category, 
>> but if they are not introduced at the same time, steps should be taken 
>> so that neither category is advantaged or disadvantaged, and 
>> procedures should be developed to avoid possible conflicts";
>> 
>> GNSO Council made a resolution in January 2009 to assert that "the 
>> GNSO Council strongly believes that neither the New gTLD or ccTLD fast 
>> track process should result in IDN TLDs in the root before the other 
>> unless both the GNSO and ccNSO so agree";
>> 
>> An IDN gTLD Fast Track, if successfully implemented, could be 
>> introduced in close proximity with the IDN ccTLD Fast Track in the 
>> case that the New gTLD process is further delayed, and could address 
>> the concerns expressed by the GNSO Council regarding possible 
>> conflicts if IDN gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs are not introduced at the same 
>> time.
>> 
>> 
>> RESOLVED:
>> 
>> To recommend to the ICANN Board that an IDNG WG (Internationalized 
>> Generic Top-Level Domain Working Group) be formed under the Proposed 
>> Charter for the IDNG Working Group (IDNG WG).
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>