Re: [gnso-idn-wg] 4.1.5

[Tan Tin Wee <tinwee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Regarding 4.1.5 which Ram has just initiated,

Support for prioritizing languages/scripts for the IDN gTLD launch according to 
demand/need, possibly using a notion of "distance to ASCII" (for example, by 
giving higher priority to right-to-left scripts than to "decorated Latin")

can be and should be upgraded to agreement, unless we want to quibble over
whether one can or cannot compare languages and scripts to ASCII ;-)

However, I would like to discuss the following because I think it is worthwhile
to consider the issue of lower entry barriers. I had previously
commented about the success criteria of an IDN deployment at TLD level.

I think it is important that we have support, if not agreement by
everyone, that in the forthcoming IDN gTLD outcome, we should see
some geographical diversity in the winners, and there should be processes
in place that levels the playing field for newcomers especially from developing
countries, for the entry barrriers to be lowered as well as for their
technical and operational expertise to be leveled upwards with
assistance programmes. I see this as only fair and right thing to do.
In this regard, there has to be some degree of preferential treatment
during this transient period at the very least. I would like to propose:

  Support for preferential and/or fast-tracked prioritized
  treatment of applications  from applicants arising from
  the particular language/script communities themselves that
  are in need of IDN gTLDs so as to achieve inclusivity, for example,
  a. through lower financial entry barriers, b. technical and operational
  criteria that are commensurate with the community which the IDN gTLD is
  intended to serve, with policies that are crafted in consultation
  with the specific language or script-using community, in recognition
  of their rights and natural linguistic expertise in their own language and
  their specific knowledge of what is appropriate and needed;
  where the prioritisation process can involve the utilitarian
  measure of an effective user population that stands to benefit
  from the deployment of the IDN gTLD applied for.

As you rightly put it, we need objective yardsticks,
and prioritization stated without objective yardsticks
addressing financial entry barriers, and technical and operational
difficulties of applicants from developing countries for instance,
or the size of the population that will stand to benefit,
will only be paying lip service to the currently disenfranchised.

bestrgds
tw


Ram Mohan wrote:
> Dear WG Members,
>
> Currently, 4.1.5 is a Support statement.  I wonder if there are 
> significant opposing views to this statement, or if we have the 
> willingness to elevate this “Distance to ASCII” statement to an Agreement?
>
>  
>
> Although there are many reasons for an IDN gTLD application, arguably 
> the biggest one is to allow those communities where traditional ASCII 
> representations, and/or alphabetized representations are inadequate for 
> domain name labels, are allowed a way to represent their languages 
> online.  We know that there are only a few remaining barriers to 
> achieving this.  Should we encourage “distance to ASCII” as an objective 
> yardstick of prioritization?
>
>  
>
> -Ram
>
> * *
>
> *4.1.5 *
>
> *Support* for prioritizing languages/scripts for the IDN gTLD launch 
> according to demand/need, possibly using a notion of “distance to ASCII” 
> (for example, by giving higher priority to right-to-left scripts than to 
> “decorated Latin”).
>
>