RE: [gnso-idn-wg] One string per application
- To: "Tan, William" <William.Tan@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-idn-wg] One string per application
- From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:00:27 -0800
Thanks Wil. This makes some sense to me, but I have trouble understanding how
you differentiate between situation with .com, .kom, and .com with an umlaut?
I guess you are focusing on user utility, rather than user confusion, but I
don't see much difference.
Sr. Legal Director
NOTICE: This communication is confidential and may be protected by
attorney-client and/or work product privilege. If you are not the intended
recipient, please notify me by reply, and delete this communication and any
From: owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Tan, William
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 2:32 PM
Subject: [gnso-idn-wg] One string per application
This may be a bit premature but I'll bring it up anyway given that we
will eventually get to the "Existing gTLD Strings" topic, and that the
following has at least some overlap with the "Introduction of New gTLDs"
topic that we discussed in the last call.
In one of the documents that Olof sent out in preparation of the Feb 6
calls, we had the following bullet point under "Existing gTLD Strings":
4.1 Agreement that the approach of the New gTLD PDP is one string
for each application.
Have we considered provisions for TLDs in scripts that require bundling?
This is at least applicable to Chinese domain names, where variants are
widely regarded as necessary for proper utility of the TLD (or, more
generally, the domain name.)
For example, if someone were to apply for .西雅? (Traditional Chinese
transliteration of Seattle), it would only make sense to have .西雅图 as
well so that people who use Simplified Chinese (China, Singapore) can
expect to find it. By restricting applications to a single string, the
utility of the TLD would be vastly reduced.