RE: [gnso-idn-wg] sTLD participation in the IDN space

["Tina Dam" <tina.dam@xxxxxxxxx>]

To expand on Marilyn's note - and especially to those who has not been
involved in the PDP for new gTLDs - there is a specific restriction in this
PDP concerning confusing similarity. 

Confusingly similarity goes across scripts (and languages) as well. I have
heard several times end-users being confused about domain names they have
registered under (IDN) transliterated strings in alternant roots that when
transliterated or translated into ASCII corresponds to an existing gTLD.
These customers approach the corresponding gTLD registries and complain
about lack of service (such as their domain name not functioning etc) - but
the gTLD registries are not able to help them because the domain names are
not under their control or administration.

I wonder how the PDP on new gTLDs process (for making sure that there is no
confusingly similarity between applied strings and existing strings) match
with the previous statements from members on this WG on sTLDs (and gTLDs in
general) participation and also the recommendation for support to existing
IDN developments in regions? It seems to me that they are in direct
conflict.

I recommend that Ram as our Chair to discuss with the GNSO PDP for new gTLDs
(- group or chair) to make sure that this IDN WG does not spend/waste time
on making recommendations against work that already is in place and started
to be planned for implementation in another policy group.

Tina

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 9:35 AM
> To: Cary Karp; owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-idn-wg] sTLD participation in the IDN space
> 
> I think in fact as i understand, the existing sponsored strings did 
> expect to represent that string fully. Thus, given there a few 
> sponsored names at present, I wonder if the statements made earlier 
> that the previous sponsored strings may be uniquely treated  are not 
> valid, and that new strings can have different rules, as should the 
> open, unrestricted present strings. But please keep in mind the need 
> for a string NOT to be confusingly similar to an existing string.
> Regards,
> Marilyn Cade
>   
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cary Karp <ck@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 12:54:30
> To:gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-idn-wg] sTLD participation in the IDN space
> 
> Quoting Yoav:
>  
> > 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.
> 
> If it is not possible to provide a single categorical definition of 
> sponsorship, there is no basis for categorical statements about how 
> sTLDs may or may not participate in the internationalization of the 
> name space. This notwithstanding, I would suggest that ICANN's 
> contractual recognition of a Sponsoring Organization provides a fully 
> applicable -- if not outright tautological -- working definition of 
> that concept.
> 
> If it would help this discussion for the Registry Constituency to 
> develop the position statement suggested in:
> 
>       http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-idn-wg/msg00181.html
> 
> I will gladly set that process in motion.
> 
> /Cary
>