RE: [gnso-idn-wg] Item 4.2.2 - Subbiah

["Mark McFadden" <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Very helpful.  What I wanted to avoid was a notion that somehow, an
amorphous and difficult to define "Language Community" would have to be
chartered/created/consulted before ICANN could consider an application. 

mark

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of subbiah
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 1:47 PM
To: mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: rmohan@xxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx;
'GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: [gnso-idn-wg] Item 4.2.2 - Subbiah

Let me clarify,

My own goal was first of all to expand on an existing  "Alterniave View" 
that document alraedy had that gives goverments some responsibilty with 
gTLD applications, to be excluded to langauge community broadly. If that 
was not possible, to then suggest an additional Alternate View in 
parallel to those for a county for a langaueg group. Let me stess 
"Alternate View"

Next, I don't think either Alternate View (the original for country's) 
nor the one I proposed for langauge community, suggested  allowing ICANN 
to not consider any application that has not first been reviewed and 
approved by a country or a language community. I see no issue here.

Cheers



Mark McFadden wrote:

>Comments inline:
>
>>From Ram:
>If the goal is to ensure that local language authorities/communities voices
>are heard, our current draft document already address it adequately - by
>stating that for all new IDN gTLD applications, ICANN should consult these
>authorities/communities.
>
>Mark McFadden:
>I strongly believe that the existing draft stresses the importance of local
>language authorities and voices.  I do not believe that our draft should
>create or propose entirely new organizations to do this review.  Instead,
>the process should allow and enable ICANN to identify and consult the
>community.  Solving the problem of the language disapora is not within the
>scope of ICANN's limited technical coordination remit.  I can't see any
>realistic or reliable mechanism to ensure that all and any community (for
>instance, the excellent example of Tamil) could be engaged in a meaningful
>way to discuss the merits of a IDN TLD application.
>
>>From Ram:
>If the goal is to ensure that ICANN must not even consider any application
>that has not first been "blessed" by a language community, then this is a
>new topic that needs new discussion, rather than amend an existing topic
>that already has some broad support to it.
>
>>From Mark:
>I hope this is not the intent of the IDN WG.  I'm strongly against the
>notion of not allowing ICANN to consider any application that has not first
>been reviewed and approved by a (undefined and amorphous) "language
>community."
>
>Thanks.
>
>amrk
>
>
>
>  
>



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.413 / Virus Database: 268.18.13/726 - Release Date: 3/18/2007