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

["Alexei Sozonov" <sozon@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello everyone,

Regarding 4.3.4.

I agree with new 4.3.4 proposal suggested by Subbiah



Alexei Sozonov



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "subbiah" <subbiah@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
<gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 1:32 AM
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