Re: [gnso-idncctlds-wg] Proposed Additional Draft Language

["Sophia B" <sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx>]

 .
Hi Chuck,

Sorry for the last minute edit, but these comments in RED are to address a)
*Should this relationship be maintained?, because some of the comments we
were trying to address/combine the responses for two into one. So I has
volunteered for the editing of a), which somehow addresses d) as well.*
**
*Sophia*


On 08/08/07, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>  As promised in today's meeting, here is my suggestion for additional
> wording on page 3, question d) under major question '*Which 'territories'
> are eligible for an IDN ccTLD?*'  For ease of seeing the context,I copied
> question d) and the already agreed to GNSO response.  My suggested added
> wording is in blue font.
>
>
> *d) Should anything be done about ccTLDs already being used as gTLDs?*
>
> GNSO response:  This seems to be an issue of primary concern for the
> governments associated with individual ccTLDs.  If it is agreed that the
> associated governments should have sovereign control over their ccTLDs, then
> it seems to follow that they should be the ones to decide how to use their
> ccTLD.  In that regard though, it seems appropriate that any IDN ccTLDs
> added should be done for the sole purpose of benefiting the applicable local
> ccTLD language community (or language communities as applicable).   For
> example, for fictitious ASCII ccTLD .xi serving a territory called Island X,
> an IDN ccTLD for .xi should only be added using a specific script that is
> used by an Island X language community and the purpose of that ccTLD should
> be to serve members of that particular language community on Island X as
> well as any of its members that may be located elsewhere in the world; an
> IDN ccTLD for .xi should not be added to serve a generic global purpose,
> i.e., If it is agreed that the associated governments should have
> sovereign control over their
> ccTLDs, then it seems to follow that they should be the ones to decide how
> to use their ccTLD.  In that regard though, it seems appropriate that any
> IDN ccTLDs added should be done for the sole purpose of
> benefiting the applicable local ccTLD language community (or language
> communities as applicable).   For example, for fictitious ASCII ccTLD .xi
> serving a territory called Island X, an IDN ccTLD for .xi should
> only be added using a specific script that is used by an Island X language
> community and the purpose of that ccTLD should be to serve members of that
> particular language community on Island X as well as any
> of its members that may be located elsewhere in the world; an IDN ccTLD
> for .xi should not be added to serve a generic global purpose, i.e.,
> making it a defacto gTLD.And if such restriction is or cannot be
> specifically prohibited upon deployment of new IDN ccTLDs then this issue of
> "unfair competition" must be addressed by means of ensuring
> that the techncial, financial and operational criteria required for
> deployment/application for an IDN ccTLD must be same or similar to that for
> a new IDN gTLD.
> Please feel free to openly critique this suggested wording on the list.
>
> Chuck Gomes
>
> "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which
> it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
> confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
> unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you
> have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and
> destroy/delete the original transmission."
>
>