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

["Shahram Soboutipour" <ceo@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi

 

If the ASCII â.jobsâ existing registry situation is true then I must 
support the comments by Subbiah

 

Regards,

 

 <BLOCKED::mailto:soboutipour@xxxxxxxxxxx> Shahram Soboutipour

President and CEO

 <BLOCKED::http://www.karmania.ir/> Karmania Media

Tel: +98 341 2117844,5

Mobile: +98 913 1416626

Fax: +98 341 2117851

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of subbiah
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 1:02 PM
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 âcommercialâ IDN gTLDs  from the point of view 

whether a single âworthyâ 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 âsponsoredâ somehow 

means ânon-profitâ can be shown to be quite untrue with the example of 

â.jobsâ â 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 âgTLDsâ 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 âsponsored gTLDsâ 

since a candidate gTLD string that may be considered âsponsoredâ 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