ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gnso-idng] reporting back to the council

  • To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] reporting back to the council
  • From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 10:40:58 -0400

There is the disproportionate cost for minority, lesser taught, and
endangered languages of the cost for applications for strings in the
scripts of the dominant languages, and for a really horrific example
I'll use the 9 million Rom peoples known as "Gypsies", "Gitans",
"Manouches", "Romanichels", or "Tziganes", according to the country
and region of Europe in which Rom people live. Without even looking at
the Cyrillic, a Rom linguistic and cultural applicant needs to cost
in, or abandon due to cost, some of half a dozen strings, and hundreds
of thousands of Rom registrants and their local social and economic
relations, Rom and non-Rom, which use one of the abandoned strings.

The Council of Europe recently denounced the aggravation of the
tendency of anti-tisganism of the worst sort.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently stated that the rights of
the Rom people is a priority for the United States under the Obama

If Staff continues, knowingly, to inflict disparate impact on
minority, lesser taught, and endangered languages, that is a GNSO
Council, and Board issue to correct, or not. If uncorrected, the EU
and the US are free to make their general views concrete w.r.t.
ICANN's languages and inclusion missions.

So as Stéphane observes, the issue is not limited to the non-Latin
scripts selected by the participants in the ccTLD IDN FT, but is more
general, and present even in Latin.

The other aspect of this is cost recovery. If the hypothetical Rom
application comes up with N x $185k (one time) and N x $25k
(recurring) costs, is this reasonable?


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy