RE: [gnso-idng] motion for IDNG WG formation
- To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Edmon Chung <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] motion for IDNG WG formation
- From: Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 22:40:24 +1000
Thanks for taking the time to clarify Chuck.
I'll give it due consideration (i.e. sleep on it) and get back to you.
I think it is a slippery slope if you start this, however, in the scenario you
suggest it could indeed be workable.
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, 3 June 2009 10:32 PM
To: Adrian Kinderis; Edmon Chung; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] motion for IDNG WG formation
It's really not very complicated Adrian.
1. The ideal approach for IDN TLDs is for both IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs
to be launched at the same general time frame. Two reasons for this
are: 1) To avoid giving either IDN ccTLDs or IDN gTLDs a competitive
advantage over the other for a service that has had pent-up demand for
years; 2) to give businesses and organizations that provide services
and/or products in multiple countries to have a choice between
registering their names in either an IDN gTLD or in multiple IDN ccTLDs
or both. Regarding the latter, the Arab region is a good example; if I
operate a business in multiple Arab countries, I may prefer to register
my name in the Arabic script in one IDN gTLD rather than in multiple IDN
ccTLDs; on the other hand, if I only operate my business in one Arab
country, I might prefer to register it in the IDN ccTLD for that
2. It now appears that IDN ccTLDs could be introduced significantly
sooner than new gTLDs, so there could be a gap of 6 to 9 months between
when IDN ccTLDs are implemented and when IDN gTLDs are implemented,
assuming that IDN gTLDs are introduced as part of the overall new gTLD
process as originally planned.
3. In case #2 happens, we could close the gap by having an IDN gTLD fast
You are of course correct that the overarching issues and other
unresolved new gTLD implementation issues apply to IDN gTLDs as well as
to ASCII gTLDs. That is why any IDN gTLD fast track approach would have
to address those issues. There are probably multiple ways that could be
handled; let me describe one possible scenario: 1) Let's assume that
IDN ccTLDs are introduced by 1 January 2010; 2) let's also assume that
the final DAG is approved in December 2009 as currently projected and
that the minimum 4-month communication period starts then ; 3) an IDN
gTLD fast track process could be implemented on 1 January 2010 just like
the IDN ccTLD fast track process at the beginning of the communication
period. In this scenario, the final DAG would apply to any IDN gTLDs
that are approved. There of course could be different scenarios that
would require other approaches but it does not seem unreasonable to
think that processes could be developed to deal with them.
One question for you: Why should IDN ccTLDs get a first to market
advantage over IDN gTLDs?
Regarding your last question, why should IDN gTLDs have a first to
market advantage over ASCII gTLDs, I would say that it is much less of a
market advantage when comparing IDN TLDs to ASCII TLDs than it is
comparing IDN gTLDs to IDN ccTLDs.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 5:18 AM
> To: Edmon Chung; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] motion for IDNG WG formation
> I'm sorry. I still don't get it.
> I'm sorry I haven't been available for phone calls
> particularly those that fall on or after midnight (as every
> one has lately, my bad).
> Can someone please explain to me, in simple terms, why this
> needs to proposed?
> I understand completely that IDN ccTLD's should not delay the
> launch of IDN new gTLD's however this seems somewhat
> superfluous to this issue. If the ccNSO et al take too long
> sorting out their fast track process so be it. Their loss. Go
> forth gTLD (IDN or otherwise)
> Why should IDN new gTLD's be launched *prior* to ascii gTLD's
> as is being suggested? Why don't the exact issues that are
> retarding the release of ascii gTLD's (the four overarching
> issues plus others) apply to IDN gTLD's? Are IDN's not
> subject to trademarks like ascii gTLD's or will they not be
> subject to second level issues (as proposed by the GAC)? Will
> registrants like McDonald's still have to register in every
> script to protect their brand and ignore any clearing house
> suggestion as proposed in the IRT Report?
> What am I missing here?
> I merely don't understand the point of why IDN gTLD's should
> get special treatment when they aren't special at all. Why
> should IDN gTLD's have any first to market advantage over
> ascii gTLD's?
> Apologies if I am covering ground that is well travelled but
> I am at a loss with the logic.
> As it stands I will be suggested to my Constituency to vote
> against any such motion.
> Adrian Kinderis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung
> Sent: Wednesday, 3 June 2009 6:29 PM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-idng] motion for IDNG WG formation
> Hi Everyone,
> Below is a first stab at a possible motion to go with the
> IDNG charter. Please take a look and make suggestions.
> The ICANN community has been discussing issues related to IDN
> and IDN TLDs since 2000, and the ICANN board as early as
> September 2000 recognized "that it is important that the
> Internet evolve to be more accessible to those who do not use
> the ASCII character set";
> There is expressed demand from the community, especially from
> language communities around the world who do not use English
> or a Latin based script as a primary language, including the
> CJK (Chinese Japanese Korean) communities and the
> right-to-left directional script communities (e.g. Arabic,
> Hebrew, Persian, etc.), for advancing the introduction of
> Internationalized Top-Level Domains (IDN TLDs);
> GNSO IDN WG successfully completed its outcomes report in
> March 2007 and the GNSO Council approved the incorporation of
> its findings in the GNSO Final Report on the Introduction of
> New gTLDs in September 2007, describing policy requirements
> for the introduction of IDN gTLDs;
> The community observes the successful development of the IDN
> ccTLD Fast Track based on the IDNC WG recommendations, and
> the ongoing progress for the Implementation of the IDN ccTLD
> Fast Track Process;
> The implementation of the New gTLD process is ongoing and the
> schedule and development of the implementation should continue;
> GNSO Council had made comments in response to the ccNSO-GAC
> Issues Report on IDN Issues, as well as in its comments on
> the IDNC WG Final Report expressed that "the introduction of
> IDN gTLDs or IDN ccTLDs should not be delayed because of lack
> of readiness of one category, but if they are not introduced
> at the same time, steps should be taken so that neither
> category is advantaged or disadvantaged, and procedures
> should be developed to avoid possible conflicts";
> GNSO Council made a resolution in January 2009 to assert that
> "the GNSO Council strongly believes that neither the New gTLD
> or ccTLD fast track process should result in IDN TLDs in the
> root before the other unless both the GNSO and ccNSO so agree";
> An IDN gTLD Fast Track, if successfully implemented, could be
> introduced in close proximity with the IDN ccTLD Fast Track
> in the case that the New gTLD process is further delayed, and
> could address the concerns expressed by the GNSO Council
> regarding possible conflicts if IDN gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs are
> not introduced at the same time.
> To recommend to the ICANN Board that an IDNG WG
> (Internationalized Generic Top-Level Domain Working Group) be
> formed under the Proposed Charter for the IDNG Working Group
> (IDNG WG).