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

["Ram Mohan" <rmohan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Some observations:

- We've already said no priority rights exist (i.e., VeriSign does not
automatically get .com in all languages).  Plus, also note that .COM is not
a sponsored TLD
- We've said each new IDN gTLD application should be treated on its own
merit, and language community input is essential
- We've listed out what we mean by confusingly similar, and I believe that
this is reflected in our draft outcomes document.

We also need to acknowledge that some sponsored registries have expressed
their views that they believe they should get the equivalent of their TLD
string, which we should note.

In short, Yoav/Tina/WG members: I don't believe we're going to get to
"agreement" on this topic.  We certainly seem to have support and
alternative views that are well developed.  Olof, could you summarize these
views into a support/alternate view statement please?

Regards,
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 Yoav Keren
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 8:42 AM
To: Tina Dam; gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-idn-wg] sTLD participation in the IDN space

I disagree with your view Tina.

I disagree that the concept "confusingly similar", with the
interpretation you gave to it, goes across scripts/languages. We
specifically crystallized the concept of "confusingly similar" in the
IDN world to typographically/ visually confusingly similar. 
If we are to accept your view, the practical meaning of it is that the
incumbent registries will automatically receive all the
transliterations/translations of their TLD in all other
languages/scripts (for example Verisign will be the registry for the
transliterations of .com and .net in all other scripts).
There was a strong opposition in the WG against this view. And there was
a support here to give language/local communities a preference. 

I believe that if ICANN goes along that path the IDN initiative of ICANN
will raise enormous resistance in local language communities around the
world, and will be doomed to fail.
 
I do not see why if another WG which was considering new ASCII TLDs, and
developed some concepts without considering their IDN implications, then
the IDN WG cannot come with a different view that takes into
consideration the opulent views that were presented in the WG by
representatives of different cultures and language communities around
the world.

Regards,

Yoav

P.s. Just a reminder that a previous committee for IDN, the Katoh led
committee, that was also provided with extensive inputs, was dead
against the view suggested by Tina, and against automatically delegating
IDN TLDs equivalent to current gTLDs, to the incumbent registries.   


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
On
> Behalf Of Tina Dam
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 11:38 AM
> To: gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idn-wg] sTLD participation in the IDN space
> 
> 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
> >