Re: [gnso-idn-wg] Item 4.3.4 Subbiah
- To: gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx, gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [gnso-idn-wg] Item 4.3.4 Subbiah
- From: "Dr Tan Tin Wee" <tinwee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 03:26:23 +0800
As I had said before in one of my emails on this topic, I see the
special case treatment of sponsored gTLDs as problematic.
Firstly, we are assuming that it can be translated in the first place.
Secondly, assuming it is translatable, we have to consider that
there may be more than one mapping. And if we assign some or
all "translations" of a sponsored gTLD automatically to an
incumbent, each of these translations may stake out a scope
larger than the original. .aero for instance might end up covering
in Chinese, the air, that has a wider scope than the original.
Thirdly, as a policy for the future, who is to say what is culturally
acceptable as "sponsored" and what is not.
One size does not fit all and if we try to fit something
where there isn't a fit, something's going to break.
The world cannot be and must not be treated as having just two languages
(or two cultures) only ie. one ASCII/English and the other non-ASCII.
On 3/18/07, subbiah <subbiah@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: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
(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" [UTF-8?]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 "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