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

["Tina Dam" <tina.dam@xxxxxxxxx>]

I think the PDP/new gTLDs goes broader than that which is why I recommended
Ram to discuss with the PDP-chair for clarification. But let's talk more at
today's call if necessary. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yoav Keren [mailto:yoav@xxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 5:42 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
> > >
>