Dear Charles and WG members,
Please find below my responses to your proposals made yesterday to the WG
list.
>- Item 4.1.1: I support the "alternative view" that we should resolve
>IDN policy issues before launch of application round.
+ What is the WG view on this suggestion? So far, we have said that we
want
to avoid "hostage situations" but we've also said that IDN issues need to
stay a high priority.
+ My personal view is that IDN policy issues should continue to get strong
attention from the GNSO Council.
>- Item 4.1.5: I support the alternative to resolve policy before
>developing priority criteria. I would be very cautious about "lower
>entry barriers" as a way to address this problem, which barriers
>would be lowered? those involving technical issues? security and
>stability? More clarification to the lower entry barriers is needed.
+ I agree that lowering entry barriers needs far more careful study than
has
been done so far.
>- Item 4.2.2: I agree that a country should be able to reserve IDN
strings for the country name. Beyond that, I support the alternative
that countries' rights are limited to their respective jurisdictions.
I strongly agree, however, that the opposition of the established
institutions of a particular language group to a proposed TLD
(whether ASCII or IDN) targeted to that language group should provide
a basis for ICANN to defer or deny the application (I understood that
a similar rule is under study in the new TLDs committee to apply to
economic or cultural sectors, e.g., .bank or .library).
+ I agree regarding country name reservations. I advocate caution towards
making any statements regarding jurisdiction.
+ I agree regarding ICANN using input from language institutions in its
evaluation process.
>- Item 4.5.4: I support the alternative view that phonetic confusing
similarity should be a basis for refusing an application. There is
plenty of experience under trademark law in resolving conflicts
between words in different languages that sound similar.
+ I am in general support of this also. Are there dissenting views in our
WG?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ram Mohan
e: rmohan@xxxxxxxxxxxx | m: +1.215.431.0958
--------------------------------------------------------------------------