Re: [gnso-idn-wg] Issues list item

[Tan Tin Wee <tinwee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi, I agree. ICANN policies should not lead to this kind of outcome
as expressed so clearly by Avri.

The role of a governance body is to ensure that things are done fairly.
I did not set out in 1998 to introduce IDN for small sets of business
interests to dominate or predominate unfairly over others.
The original aims of introducing IDNs, in case we have lost that
institutional memory, is to allow those on the other side of the
digital divide to have a fighting chance and for the have-
nots to be enfranchised in the process of having IDNs in their
language of facility, and additionally, for them to have
a fair say in how IDNs in their language is being deployed.
I have consistently expressed this sentiment over the past decade.

So both the discussion on the Korean govt statement and the
statement itself should best be interpreted more positively
than otherwise.

Most certainly, policies should not be introduced
such as to favour some parties unfairly.
--
tin wee



Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There is one issue related to IDNs that has been tickling at me and I am 
> not sure where it fits.  I am even not sure to what extent the issue is 
> different in IDNs then in non-IDNs
>
> I am concerned about the possible name-grab by Northern speculators of 
> all the best IDN TLDs and SLDs in scripts/alphabets used mostly in 
> Southern areas.
>
> I understand that from some aspects this may be no different then 
> investments done in current non-IDN domain names.  However, given the 
> economic predominance and experience of Northern investors, I am 
> concerned that the initial  name-grab  could push many language 
> communities into a new form of 'name imperialism', where the linguistic 
> resources that should be available to all members of a language 
> community would be dominated by a small set of business interests.
>
> a.