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

["Ram Mohan" <rmohan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

For the record, I would like to state that in response to (1) and (2) below,
the definition of a "sponsoring organization" as one that has approval from
every country in the world is one that basically stops any organization from
becoming a sponsor - after all, even the UN is not representative under
these suggestions.  The suggestions in (1) and (2) are overly broad.  We
know that all registries must conform to the law of the land in which the
TLD is offered - if a nation decides to not let .aero work in their
jurisdiction, it is unfortunate but not redeemable by any statement this WG
or ICANN may make.

To (3), that a registry is for-profit or not-for-profit does not change its
obligations under contract to ICANN and thereby to the Internet community,
which really what we ought to focus on.

We have general agreement on (5) that priority rights as such do not exist.
However, we also have general agreement that as far as possible, confusingly
similar labels should not be allowed so as to ensure that the general
Internet community does not get snared by phishing or other deceptive
practices.

-Ram

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ram Mohan
e: rmohan@xxxxxxxxxxxx | m: +1.215.431.0958
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of subbiah
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 5:32 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