RE: [gnso-idn-wg] Item 4.3.4 Subbiah

["Yoav Keren" <yoav@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi all,

I brought a few of these issues up myself on one of the calls and I
thought we had agreed on some of this. I really think that since the
current situation of sponsored gTLD is that there is no one definition
of what is, or what should be regarded as a sponsoring organization,
there should be no special treatment for sponsored gTLDs in the IDN
world.

Yoav

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
On
> Behalf Of subbiah
> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 11:32 AM
> To: GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-idn-wg] Item 4.3.4 Subbiah
> 
> Item 4.3.4
> 
> 
> I notice that there has been some previous debate on this before my
> joining this WG by a few people , particularly on one of the previous
> call recordings. My impression was that there had been some
> support/agreement of the notion that sponsored gTLDs should be treated
> no differently than "commercial" IDN gTLDs  from the point of view
> whether a single "worthy" applicant should be given the ASCII version
> and all IDN-equivalent (meaning same concept) gTLD strings in every
> language. This seems not to be reflected in the current support
> statements.
> 
> 
> 
> My own two cents on this:
> 
> 
> 
> (1)   Sponsoring organizations, while reasonably global,  may not
> represent EVERY country in the world and so not deserving of every
> language.
> 
> (2)   Supporting organizations that maybe global may not actually
> clearly enjoy the full support of all portions of society and
> government. For instance, the private sector airline association in a
> given member country where the market is regulated maybe told by the
Air
> Force that it is the rightful owner of   .aero in that language.
> 
> (3)   The widely and incorrectly shared view that "sponsored" somehow
> means "non-profit" can be shown to be quite untrue with the example of
> ".jobs" - a sponsored gTLD. Thus, what may pass or be acceptable as
> sponsored in one country may not be acceptable in a another culture.
> e.g. Singapore has a Ministry of Manpower (i.e. jobs).
> 
> (4)   Given the troubling ICANN history in registries/applicants
pushing
> the limits or re-interpreting what was initially understood to be the
> case, setting any precedent that a single applicant can get more than
a
> single language gTLD (i.e. Non script-variant) in one go (ie.
equivalent
> meanings), would be going down a slippery slope that will no doubt
> someday lead to its adoption eventually in commercial "gTLDs" as well.
> 
> (5)   Best to let every sponsor of a gTLD apply for every language
> equivalent  IDN gTLD separately, making the case separately, as if it
> were just another non-sponsored gTLD application and let the merit of
> each language request speak for itself alone.
> 
>   Given these views I have, I would like to see a new statement at
> Agreement, Support or at the very least an Alternative View that
> captures my own thoughts and what I believe was mentioned in previous
> discussion. For  starters it could be something like the following:
> 
> 
> "All gTLD applications should be treated on a case-by case-basis and
no
> special provision should be given to the concept of "sponsored gTLDs"
> since a candidate gTLD string that may be considered "sponsored" in
one
> language/culture may not be considered as such across all
> languages/cultures."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.413 / Virus Database: 268.18.12/724 - Release Date:
3/16/2007