Re: [gnso-idn-wg] 4.3.2

["Sophia B" <sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ram,

Now that you raise this concern, let me state that while I am firm on my
proposed changes to 4.2.4, the case-by-case approach in 4.2.4, may not
superficially fit my 4.3.2.

My goal with regard to 4.3.2, is to ensure that in the case of existing
gTLDs, that have been asked to go back, and fix old problems, that we would
do so, in the most united fashion, that is most feasible. The idea is to
have the most uniform policies across all gTLDs  that is possible on this
issue.  Maybe you can tweak to allow for all our concerns.  I suggest:

"any selected policy, as uniform as possible for all concerned gTLDs".

On your second point, my intention was to only cover existing gtlds, that
have already launched IDN and will be asked to retroactively make the
upcoming technical IDNA policy guidline changes.  That is before they go and
retroactively make changes, hat they should make sure ICANN is agreeable to
those changes, with respect to the upcoming IDNA changes.  I am not talking
about future IDNA guideline changes that may happen 5-10 yrs from now and
apply to all IDN registries, either existing IDN registries or future IDN
gTLD registries.

regards
Sophia


On 20/03/07, Ram Mohan <rmohan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  I am concerned about these statements, and find it difficult to lend
> support to them.
>
>
>
> *"any selected policy be uniform for all concerned gTLDs"*
>
> We have situations today, where different gTLDs have different policies on
> numerous issues.  For example, the .ORG gTLD is adopting policies in marked
> difference to the .COM gTLD with regard to domain tasting.  Similarly, the
> .TRAVEL gTLD adopts different policies to the .AERO gTLD.
>
>
>
> In general, I think that TLDs should be able to set policies that match
> their situation.  I can imagine a future where an Arabic gTLD has to set a
> specific set of policies that is quite different than a Chinese gTLD.  The
> statement above unnecessarily hamstrings such gTLDs, with very little
> discernible benefit.
>
>
>
> *"such a policy is approved by ICANN before hand."*
>
> My concern with this statement, as drafted, is that it seems to preclude
> any other policy that is developed after the approval of a given gTLD.  We
> know that ICANN is unlikely to approve all new gTLDs at the same time.  The
> wording above is written so that ICANN cannot approve any new gTLD until
> after all policies are developed.  This sounds quite impractical.
>
>
>
> As a result, although the general idea behind the proposal is interesting,
> in my opinion, we are very mistaken in attempting to adopt such a point of
> view.
>
>
>
> -Ram
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Ram Mohan
>
> e: rmohan@xxxxxxxxxxxx | m: +1.215.431.0958
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] *On
> Behalf Of *Sophia B
> *Sent:* Monday, March 19, 2007 9:11 PM
> *To:* gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx; GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [gnso-idn-wg] 4.3.2
>
>
>
> 4.3.2
>
>
>
> I though this minor change of adding a clause to this alternative view
> would allow both flexability for the gTLDs operators while reducing any
> possible confusion.
>
>
>
> Alternative view; to afford latitude for gTLDs to set policy for IDN SLDs on
> condition that any selected policy that is uniform for all concerned gTLDs
> and that such a policy is approved by ICANN before hand.
>
>
>
> Sophia