RE: [gnso-idn-wg] sTLD participation in the IDN space
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV class=RTE> <P>sounds like the most useful path forward, Ram. thanks. Marilyn <BR><BR></P></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #a0c6e5 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 11px; FONT-FAMILY: tahoma,sans-serif"> <HR color=#a0c6e5 SIZE=1> <DIV></DIV>From: <I>"Ram Mohan" <rmohan@xxxxxxxxxxxx></I><BR>Reply-To: <I><rmohan@xxxxxxxxxxxx></I><BR>To: <I>"'Yoav Keren'" <yoav@xxxxxxxx>, "'Tina Dam'" <tina.dam@xxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx></I><BR>Subject: <I>RE: [gnso-idn-wg] sTLD participation in the IDN space</I><BR>Date: <I>Mon, 19 Mar 2007 12:55:47 -0400</I><BR>>Some observations:<BR>><BR>>- We've already said no priority rights exist (i.e., VeriSign does not<BR>>automatically get .com in all languages). Plus, also note that .COM is not<BR>>a sponsored TLD<BR>>- We've said each new IDN gTLD application should be treated on its own<BR>>merit, and language community input is essential<BR>>- We've listed out what we mean by confusingly similar, and I believe that<BR>>this is reflected in our draft outcomes document.<BR>><BR>>We also need to acknowledge that some sponsored registries have expressed<BR>>their views that they believe they should get the equivalent of their TLD<BR>>string, which we should note.<BR>><BR>>In short, Yoav/Tina/WG members: I don't believe we're going to get to<BR>>"agreement" on this topic. We certainly seem to have support and<BR>>alternative views that are well developed. Olof, could you summarize these<BR>>views into a support/alternate view statement please?<BR>><BR>>Regards,<BR>>Ram<BR>><BR>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>>Ram Mohan<BR>>e: rmohan@xxxxxxxxxxxx | m: +1.215.431.0958<BR>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>><BR>><BR>>-----Original Message-----<BR>>From: owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On<BR>>Behalf Of Yoav Keren<BR>>Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 8:42 AM<BR>>To: Tina Dam; gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx<BR>>Subject: RE: [gnso-idn-wg] sTLD participation in the IDN space<BR>><BR>>I disagree with your view Tina.<BR>><BR>>I disagree that the concept "confusingly similar", with the<BR>>interpretation you gave to it, goes across scripts/languages. We<BR>>specifically crystallized the concept of "confusingly similar" in the<BR>>IDN world to typographically/ visually confusingly similar.<BR>>If we are to accept your view, the practical meaning of it is that the<BR>>incumbent registries will automatically receive all the<BR>>transliterations/translations of their TLD in all other<BR>>languages/scripts (for example Verisign will be the registry for the<BR>>transliterations of .com and .net in all other scripts).<BR>>There was a strong opposition in the WG against this view. And there was<BR>>a support here to give language/local communities a preference.<BR>><BR>>I believe that if ICANN goes along that path the IDN initiative of ICANN<BR>>will raise enormous resistance in local language communities around the<BR>>world, and will be doomed to fail.<BR>><BR>>I do not see why if another WG which was considering new ASCII TLDs, and<BR>>developed some concepts without considering their IDN implications, then<BR>>the IDN WG cannot come with a different view that takes into<BR>>consideration the opulent views that were presented in the WG by<BR>>representatives of different cultures and language communities around<BR>>the world.<BR>><BR>>Regards,<BR>><BR>>Yoav<BR>><BR>>P.s. Just a reminder that a previous committee for IDN, the Katoh led<BR>>committee, that was also provided with extensive inputs, was dead<BR>>against the view suggested by Tina, and against automatically delegating<BR>>IDN TLDs equivalent to current gTLDs, to the incumbent registries.<BR>><BR>><BR>> > -----Original Message-----<BR>> > From: owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx]<BR>>On<BR>> > Behalf Of Tina Dam<BR>> > Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 11:38 AM<BR>> > To: gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx<BR>> > Subject: RE: [gnso-idn-wg] sTLD participation in the IDN space<BR>> ><BR>> > To expand on Marilyn's note - and especially to those who has not been<BR>> > involved in the PDP for new gTLDs - there is a specific restriction in<BR>> > this<BR>> > PDP concerning confusing similarity.<BR>> ><BR>> > Confusingly similarity goes across scripts (and languages) as well. I<BR>>have<BR>> > heard several times end-users being confused about domain names they<BR>>have<BR>> > registered under (IDN) transliterated strings in alternant roots that<BR>>when<BR>> > transliterated or translated into ASCII corresponds to an existing<BR>>gTLD.<BR>> > These customers approach the corresponding gTLD registries and<BR>>complain<BR>> > about lack of service (such as their domain name not functioning etc)<BR>>-<BR>> > but<BR>> > the gTLD registries are not able to help them because the domain names<BR>>are<BR>> > not under their control or administration.<BR>> ><BR>> > I wonder how the PDP on new gTLDs process (for making sure that there<BR>>is<BR>> > no<BR>> > confusingly similarity between applied strings and existing strings)<BR>>match<BR>> > with the previous statements from members on this WG on sTLDs (and<BR>>gTLDs<BR>> > in<BR>> > general) participation and also the recommendation for support to<BR>>existing<BR>> > IDN developments in regions? It seems to me that they are in direct<BR>> > conflict.<BR>> ><BR>> > I recommend that Ram as our Chair to discuss with the GNSO PDP for new<BR>> > gTLDs<BR>> > (- group or chair) to make sure that this IDN WG does not spend/waste<BR>>time<BR>> > on making recommendations against work that already is in place and<BR>> > started<BR>> > to be planned for implementation in another policy group.<BR>> ><BR>> > Tina<BR>> ><BR>> > > -----Original Message-----<BR>> > > From: owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx<BR>> > > [mailto:owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of<BR>> > > marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx<BR>> > > Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 9:35 AM<BR>> > > To: Cary Karp; owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx<BR>> > > Subject: Re: [gnso-idn-wg] sTLD participation in the IDN space<BR>> > ><BR>> > > I think in fact as i understand, the existing sponsored strings did<BR>> > > expect to represent that string fully. Thus, given there a few<BR>> > > sponsored names at present, I wonder if the statements made earlier<BR>> > > that the previous sponsored strings may be uniquely treated are not<BR>> > > valid, and that new strings can have different rules, as should the<BR>> > > open, unrestricted present strings. But please keep in mind the need<BR>> > > for a string NOT to be confusingly similar to an existing string.<BR>> > > Regards,<BR>> > > Marilyn Cade<BR>> > ><BR>> > ><BR>> > > -----Original Message-----<BR>> > > From: Cary Karp <ck@xxxxxxxxxx><BR>> > > Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 12:54:30<BR>> > > To:gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx<BR>> > > Subject: [gnso-idn-wg] sTLD participation in the IDN space<BR>> > ><BR>> > > Quoting Yoav:<BR>> > ><BR>> > > > I really think that since the current situation of<BR>> > > sponsored gTLD is<BR>> > > > that there is no one definition of what is, or what should<BR>> > > be regarded<BR>> > > > as a sponsoring organization, there should be no special<BR>> > > treatment for<BR>> > > > sponsored gTLDs in the IDN world.<BR>> > ><BR>> > > If it is not possible to provide a single categorical definition of<BR>> > > sponsorship, there is no basis for categorical statements about how<BR>> > > sTLDs may or may not participate in the internationalization of the<BR>> > > name space. This notwithstanding, I would suggest that ICANN's<BR>> > > contractual recognition of a Sponsoring Organization provides a<BR>>fully<BR>> > > applicable -- if not outright tautological -- working definition of<BR>> > > that concept.<BR>> > ><BR>> > > If it would help this discussion for the Registry Constituency to<BR>> > > develop the position statement suggested in:<BR>> > ><BR>> > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-idn-wg/msg00181.html<BR>> > ><BR>> > > I will gladly set that process in motion.<BR>> > ><BR>> > > /Cary<BR>> > ><BR>><BR>><BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></div></html>
|