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

["Sophia B" <sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx>]

> - one that the language community should be protected from loss of
> > the their naming resources to Northern business interests
> > - that governments should not be in the position of deciding on the
> > appropriateness of an application for IDN TLD or SLD
Avri's, your first position has been the basis of my past arguments within
ICANN, period!  Your second position and hope it remains isecond:) , while a
valid concern, I would suggest rephrasing with 'the language community
rather than the govt should be deciding on the IDN TLD, perhaps, a language
community that has a valid approval of the government'  The community
perhaps could be 'better' defined by working with GAC?? don't have the
answer!

It clearly has resulted in a small group of conglomerates owning a
> disproportionate percentage of valuable TLD real estate, and obtaining a
> huge market advantage in new TLDs.

Agree with Mike, it would be my humble but urgent recommendation that this
be the priority concern/issue for IDN TLDs and the policy work for us as WG.



On 30/01/07, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 31 jan 2007, at 06.40, Tan Tin Wee wrote:
>
> > So both the discussion on the Korean govt statement and the
> > statement itself should best be interpreted more positively
> > than otherwise.
>
> My concern is anything that would give a government, or a government
> sponsored organization, control over a script/alphabet.
>
> I know that I may be appear to be contracting myself with two
> different positions:
>
> - one that the language community should be protected from loss of
> the their naming resources to Northern business interests
> - that governments should not be in the position of deciding on the
> appropriateness of an application for IDN TLD or SLD
>
> That leaves the idea of the language community having some say.  but
> the notion of language commnuinty is still somewhat unclear to me if
> we remove all notions of sovereignty.  Not only does ICANN not have a
> construct, similar perhaps to constituencies, to cover language
> communities, but I know of no way of defining membership in a
> community (e.g. questions such as: is speaking enough, or reading, or
> writing?  does someone need to be a native speaker/reader/writer?
> does the inability to read preclude membership?  if one emigrates
> from the predominant land of the language do they lose their
> membership in the community? does learning a language bring one into
> the linguistic community? if so how much does one need to learn to
> gain entry into the language community? if a company hires someone
> who is a meber of the linguistic community do they gain 'rights'
> within that linguistic community?).
>
> The quandary I find myself stuck in is finding a balance that
> protects the potential (developing nation) registrant from
> exploitation, without developing/supporting notions of linguistic
> sovereignty or investing new levels of authority on ICANN processes.
>
> a.