RE: [gnso-idn-wg] URG: Re: [council] Regarding working group membership

["Ram Mohan" <rmohan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear IDN WG Members,

Pursuant to our call yesterday, I have written Bruce Tonkin on this issue of
WG membership.  Our charter and membership guidelines are defined by the
GNSO Council.  We have adhered by this charter, and continue to do so unless
otherwise advised by the Council.

 

Our IDN WG has enjoyed robust participation and strong multi-constituency
representation due to all of your interest and dedication - please continue
to pay attention to IDNs, and add your thoughts - we are providing
appropriate velocity to the policy development process regarding IDNs.

 

Regards,

Ram

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ram Mohan

e:  <mailto:rmohan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> rmohan@xxxxxxxxxxxx | m: +1.215.431.0958
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Sophia B
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 10:04 PM
To: Bruce Tonkin; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-idn-wg] URG: Re: [council] Regarding working group membership

 

Dear Bruce,

 

The issue of 'including people' in the IDN-WG was again raised at our WG
meeting today, alongside the topic of making a mandatory procedure to submit
statement of interest to support the standardization of WG procedures across
the board.   I presume it is within the same principle and spirit that we
agreed to get people on board of all WGs as 'observers', i.e recent
additions to the RN-WG etc.., also as an interim criteria, until perhaps one
identifies a suitable constituency on GNSO or at an ICANN SO level.  

 

Towards this end, I am still puzzled that the current issue we are having
(procedural block) towards the IDN-WG, seem to be treated as an isolated
incident to be addressed at the GNSO council level,contrary to the RN-WG
which was determined by the Chair. 

 

Having said that, amongst the person that was vocal today, in giving this
issue of procedural block, an urgent attention was also Marilyn Cade, who in
the past has been very supportive when I insisted on the formation of WG
consising of experts outside GNSO to support t he policy dialog of IDNs.  

 

Therefore, in the interest of the decision we will be making at the council
level and hopefully resolve at the next council meeting, I thought it would
be fair to share with the whole council the recent letter of complaint we
have received, viz IDN "excluded" group, and also isolate that the issue of
exclusion is NOT to be necessarily recollected from complaints back in Sau
Paulo. 

 

Finally, I do not claim to represent any constituency, as I am nomcom
appontee.  However, I do feel the interest of these groups below, that were
forthcoming in writing a letter to you and coping some of us, represent only
a fraction of the larger 'IDN interest groups' that have been marginilized
in the ICANN participation process; which has led me to treat them like a
virtual IDN constituancy group, but one without a voice.

 

As such, it would be proper to heed the point that we should not be making
the same mistake of marginalizing the same group in our POLICY making
process, as the outcome of the work of the WG would not be considered a
legitimate and fair process, if we continue with isolating and/or delaying
the process.    I have always believed justice delayed is justice denied.

 

I wish to also copy this to the IDN-WG for FYI.

 

Thank you Bruce for expediting this process.  I therefore ask kindly that
this issue be put in the agenda in our next council meeting for the council
decision.

 

Sophia

GNSO Councilor, NomCom 

 ---------------------------------------------

On 24/02/07, Bruce Tonkin < <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 

Hello Sophia,
>>>    May I inform the above group from Russia and Iran as well as 
others to refer to the above
>>     for joining the IDN WG?
Lets just wait for a few days to see if there are any changes requested
by Council members.
Regards,
Bruce
-------------------------------------- 

 

TWO LETTERS Of COMPLAINT TO BRUCE TONKIN (Chair GNSo Council):


Sophia Bekele <sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: 

Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 18:52:16 -0800 (PST)
From: Sophia Bekele < <mailto:sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx>
sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Regtime of Russia participation in the ICANN IDN GNSO policy
group.
To: Alexei Sozonov < <mailto:sozon@xxxxxxxxx>  sozon@xxxxxxxxx>,
Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
CC: gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, avri@xxxxxxx, ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx, 
nhklein@xxxxxxx, ross@xxxxxxxxxx, Sophia Bekele <sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx>, 
olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx, denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx, roberto@xxxxxxxxx, 
mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Alistair.Dixon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bruce,

 

I have a suggestion.  

 

It looks like the next bomb may come from IRAN;)   These are some of the
groups and others that I have been dialoging with and, whose concerns I led
in the GNSO council in the past.

 

For the record, I credit Bruce, as Chair of the GNSO Council for being very
supportive by agreeing to put the IDN issues and the policy development
process on the agenda and taking it to the board for us, so our voices can
be heard. 

 

However, it appears that no one followed-up on the procedures of the
gatekeeper of the IDN WG and why, since SaoPaulo.  It is my opinion that
ICANN's intention was not to exclude, but there seem to be an organizational
inefficiencies and lack of awareness that excluded the critical groups of
IDN to be ignored.  I fact I was hoping ICANN would have already created the
enabling environment for supporting the critical groups that its need to
formulate the IDN policy process.   

 

It may be too strong to suggest that ICANN is 'dysfunctional", in dealing
with foreign relations; in that it does not understand international dialog
like the United Nations,  due to its western-centric experiences and views
in the past; however, the fact that we forged with the IDN WG without
ensuring an inclusive environment on its own has given a impression that the
gate keeper is also the poacher .

 

As such, for lack of mirroring the US foreign policy dominated by world view
of illegitimacy and unfairness, as the 'IDN constituencies' seem to voice, I
strongly recommend Bruce, that we deal with this urgently at the GNSO
Council level , and if we cannot be able at our level to sort it out and the
result is pointing-fingers to the inter department (i.e bureaucracy) , it
may be best to raise it as an URGENT issue to the board.

 

So you are aware Bruce, according to the IDN WG priority topics, we have
chosen new gtlds and geopolitical topics as the most critical IDN issues.
There are amost 30 people signed up on the WG, where only 7-8 actively
participate, and groups that want to participate are not represented.   This
of course does not reflect on the WG Chair, who is doing a great job of
Chairing, but given the complexities of the subject matter, I struggle and
hunger for the lack of a rich dialog with people that have the genuine
EXPERTISE to construct a credible debate on IDNs.  I say these because I
talk with the people that do, and they are not represented in our WG.  

 

The IDN technology was invented in the East and is being debated by the West
and the  people that have INVENTED the technologies and are ACTIVE in the
market are not with us or are not welcomed!.  These people are listening to
our dialogs and they want to come on board on our next meeting, where the
critical topic has ee pointed out.!  We should have a mechanism to bring
them on board!

 

Towards this end, I am not sure if the final output of this WG will also be
considered a legitimate and fair view of the IDN debate for our Lisbon
Agena.   ICANN needs to address these issues urgently in its pyramid world,
the rest of the world is getting flat!  

 

Mr. Chairman, I look for your continued eadership, support and urgent help!

 

Respectfully, 

 

Sophia

GNSO Council

Alexei Sozonov < sozon@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:sozon@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote:

    Dear Bruce,

    We would like to bring back the issue regarding our participation in the
ICANN IDN discussions process.
    Let me briefly remind our case.

1. We've contacted you first time on November 7, 2006 when I send an
application to join the ICANN GNSO Business Constituency. 

2. In two days we send our application to join GNSO Business Constituency -
and it was accepted.
   We met all the criterias publicly announced by ICANN for GNSO Commercial
and Business Constituency.

3. I was interviewed by phone later and was told that everything was fine
and work was in progress. 

4. Then silence... We've send a letter to Gray, BC secretariat saying that:
" we've sent an application to join the ICANN GNSO Business Constituency 

almost 2 months ago (sao paulo event had passed already) - no response..."

5. Then... we've got response at the end of December - "We regret to inform
you that according to the above criteria the Credentials 
Committee has recommended your application does not go forward." -

 

  - BUT this criteria DID NOT match pre-established public criteria
announced by ICANN for GNSO Commercial and Business Constituency in the
website.

    And we are not qualified for any other constituency!

    It is just not fair and not legitimate - and this is a reason why we're
bringing it back.

    Looks like somebody doesn't want Russians to participate :)

   This is, despite the fact that our company, Regtime of Russia (
www.regtime.net <http://>   www.webnames.ru <http://>  ) is the largest
independent private domain name reseller of ICANN domains in Russia (.com,
.ru and .info etc.) and for many years the fastest growing one in Russia
(as I mentioned before, since 2001 , we're selling ICANN domains from
MelbournIT among others). 


    We've been selling some 17 different gtlds and cctlds, including
Verisign's Cyrillic .com names for many years. 
    We've been attending ICANN meetings since 2000.
 

    Our company is a joint venture with the Russian Chamber of Commerce
which today is headed by Former Prime Minister of Russia - Primakov. 

    With our expertise we have an advisory power for the President's
Administration and the Government .


    We don't know if Eastern Europe at all (total of perhaps  500Million
population) exists on this IDN committee - again, it seems that nobody wants
us 

(Russia - Cyrillic speaking 150 Million population) there! How come?...  Is
it another example of double standards we have???


    Dear Bruce ,
 

originally we'd been asked (and still thank her for that) by Sophia Bekele
why don't we join ICANN GNSO process.
 

    Nobody in fair and legitimate world has anticipated any changes in
pre-established and announced public criteria which been done during the
process. 
 

    So, here again we state that we want to participate in ICANN GNSO policy
group.

 

    We do understand that majority of meetings are done already  but we'd
like to participate al least in the next one
 

    Facing all this difficulties we are not surprised the news we read
before about how they solved IDN in China. 

 


    Best Regards,

    Alexei Sozonov
    Regtime.net  <http://regtime.net/> 

Office:  +1-604-9839233
Cell:     +1-604-7739204
-
 



Shahram Soboutipour < ceo@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ceo@xxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: 

From: "Shahram Soboutipour" < <mailto:ceo@xxxxxxxxxxx>  ceo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
CC: "'Mike Rodenbaugh'" <mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"'Alistair Dixon'" < Alistair.Dixon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
< ross@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx> >,
"'Olof Nordling'" <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>,
"'Denise Michel'" < denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx>,
"'Roberto Gaetano'" < roberto@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:roberto@xxxxxxxxx> >,
"'Mike Rodenbaugh'" <mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
< avri@xxxxxxx <mailto:avri@xxxxxxx> >,
<ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>,
< nhklein@xxxxxxx <mailto:nhklein@xxxxxxx> >,
"'Sophia Bekele'" <sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx>,
"' GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <
<mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: why Karmania Media was regected from being involved in ICANN
commitee?
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 21:54:57 +0330

Dear Mr. Bruce Tonkin

 

I would like to take this opportunity to remind you on my request in
involving ICANN committees and the process happened until I got the
unacceptable result of REJECTION: 

 

1.      on Nov 7th 2006 I sent my request to you, and you answered me in 1
day asking me to first become a member of a GNSO constituency and you also
suggested me to request for BC membership. 
2.      I filled out the BC membership application form on Nov 9th and sent
it to the BC secretariat (Mr. Gary Hill), and also sent you a letter
informing you that I have started the process. 
3.      On the same day the BC secretariat asked me some questions to find
out whether I have the criteria or not and I sent them the answers. 
4.      on Nov 11th I had a phone call at a time I think was midnight in US,
asking me several questions about me and those whom I have relation with !!
in IDN field etc. which some of them were realy strange since I couldn't
find any relation between his questions and the BC criteria on involving
with the constituency. He said that there is no problem and the process will
take apprx 1-2 weeks. Unfortunately I don't remember his name. I sent a mail
to the BC secretariat asking about this strange phone call, but the BC
secretariat had NO NEWS about any phone calls!! 
5.      I had another mail sent to the BC secretariat on Nov 17th asking
about the process but no news until I got a mail on Nov 25 th asking me some
new questions regarding the type of my business etc which I did answer
again. 
6.      Then every thing was shut-down and I had no news from the BC
secretariat although I sent several emails asking about the process. So
after a period of 20 DAYS!! I was really upset on the type of the actions
done on my request, so I sent a mail asking them to describe me about the
delay. 
7.      After 4 days (Dec 20th 2006) I got a mail describing the reasons I
was rejected on this application.

 It is really a super question for me that if a for-profit agency working on
internet technology does not match the BC criteria and also is not a
registry or registrar, then how can it join ICANN? And where can my position
be? 

 

My company is a pioneer in domain name registration area and has a 6 year
experience in the field. We do have a market share of more than 90% of
south-east of Iran. Thanks to our deep research on the Persian IDNs
technology, now Karmania Media has 2 members (of 6) in the Iranian WG of
Persian domains under authorization of the Iranian High Council of IT which
is the main decision making center of IT in the government. 

 

The total number of Persian speaking people is more than 150 million in the
world and among this, Iran has the main power (in science, technology and
even money) to affect the language between other related countries
(Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Armenia etc...). We have an internet population of
21 Million Persian speaking people and the main society who writes
Right-to-Left, so how can I be participated on the decisions made in ICANN
regarding my language? 

I think no decision can be good without participation of its beneficiaries,
and I think this is the logic of ICANN.

So why some men are acting against ICANN policies?

 

Finnaly I take this opportunity in showing my interest in being involved the
decisions made by ICANN on IDNs, since I think this can be my logical right
as a Persian language speaking man who has worked on the business/technology
of Persian IDNs for several years. 

 

Regards,

 

Shahram Soboutipour

President and CEO

Karmania Media

Tel: +98 341 2117844,5

Mobile : +98 913 1416626

Fax: +98 341 2117851