IDN gTLD constituency crucial now more than ever

[Tan Tin Wee <tinwee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Fundamental Challenges" notably posted by highly influential
individuals have focused on the following points enumerated
below, and need to be addressed. Apologies in advance for
being over the top about it, but >10 years waiting for
an Internet innovation probably warrants more than hyperbole.

So here goes...

<rant on>

a. whether IDN constituency is a necessary condition for IDNs to develop

To be sure, let me reiterate:
An IDN constituency is essential, and one led by more if not
all non-native English language speakers is essential. History
has proven that anyway otherwise, leads to long, long decade
old delays.

Yes, now that we indeed have a decade of IDNs being led by the
native-English language speakers or those comfortable with status quo
and no personal need to use IDNs, those who out of good intentions,
mistaken intentions or otherwise who have been in the driver's
seat of IDNs, it is about time they stopped being helpful and give
others a chance.

IDNs should be driven forward by people who intimately
know and feel the dispossession of not having domain names
in their language.  Hence an IDN constituency as petitioned
for is absolutely essential. Ten years of non-progress is probably
proof enough that existing efforts are inadequate to the task
of a full implementation of IDNs.

Isn't it too coincidental that the very same people who
have debated and debated over IDNs on technical, structural,
engineering, commercial, legal, security issues are predominantly
non-IDN users or optional-IDN users for which domain names
in non-latin languages are not a necessity but an option
or worse an oddity? Isn't it why for those for which
their own non-English language is an absolute necessity, are not
represented or present to speak and present their case for themselves
in itself the very reason IDNs hasn't been implemented
anywhere near successfully or with any urgency for the past decade.
Let's give way to a fairer representation. Nothing less would redress
the lost decade of such structural imbalance.


b. Does this fit with the Board's proposed future structure
of GNSO Stakeholder Groups?

Principle of "No double dipping!" I guess it should fit.
Otherwise, applying the same arguments to the proposed ISP
and Business constituencies, where examples of possible dual membership
in both ISP and Business constituencies abound,  the same two that
consider the IDN gTLD constituency application a misfit based
on a "structural challenge" by their very own current constituents,
are just as, if not more  "structurally challenged"
in the past and by most estimates, probably intend to continue
to be "structurally challenged" in the proposed reform. Perhaps
the IDN gTLD constituency proposal is but a clearer reflection
of what they have been and what they probably intend to be.
Guys, let's give all three a try!

c. Public-Private Challenge.

That the IDNgTLDC may have "members that are specialist agencies of government
or public-private partnerships interested in IDN issues," would lead
necessarily to "governments (via their agencies) may have a say in the vote for
the selection of Board members via the GNSO seats?" is a total red herring.
To argue this way is to say the USG through its agencies have had a say
in the vote for the selection of Board members, office bearers etc
for the entire duration of ICANN's existence as conceived by
a member of the USG in 1998.

As some would argue, "the fact of the matter is that the
Business and ISP communities are full of the influence
and impact of government interest", arguably. So just count
the number of ccTLDs that today are controlled or own or deemed
interest by government or government-linked entities.
Take a look at the number of ISPs owned by sovereign
wealth trusts or government-owned, or government-owned
or controlled telcos. Or simply count the number of times
votes/policies/decisions have come down the way governments
would have liked it. Even if governments are to be treated
with suspicion, it is probably better to have their influence
up front rather than hidden behind various cloaks of proxies
where we cannot see where they are coming from.

Either way one argues it, the public-private challenge
as a sine qua non for debating IDN gTLD constituency is
a total red herring. If it were not, then the Business
and ISP constituency should run by the same rules and
have this same issue addressed in there, and have their
legitimacy challenged there in the same way. No more double
standards please, it is way too obvious for any one to
pull this one off in this day and age.


d. THE POLICY CHALLENGE

That IDN gTLDC as a constituency dedicated to one policy issue of
many addressed by the GNSO is questionably
able to contribute to other GNSO policies such as ASCII TLDs is
yet another red herring that does not need too much response.

That these "Challenges" with a capital C
must be resolved before this petition can progress, is exactly
the same flawed approach and faulty world view that has stalled IDNs
religioiusly for the past ten years. We can choose to repeat the
past decade with doublespeak and dogma, and come back
in 2019 and talk about these points and pretend that the
rest of the non-English speaking world is not going to notice;
but why not try something new. Let's be innovative and creative.
After all, this is the Internet with a capital I we're
talking about aren't we?.

Interestingly, ten years ago, it was the financial crisis
of Asia that threw Western voices into a holier-than-thou
mode of engagement with all things international. Now that
the current financial meltdown arising from the very policies foisted
on the rest of the world by the West is the talk of the day,
such arguments really contain loopholes so big that one can drive a
bus through.

For the well-intentioned, stop helping us please. We have had
enough of patronising lipservice of how important IDNs are,
and how convinced you are about our need for IDNs. Trust me,
we know we need IDNs without you telling us in English!
The weight of your ten years of enthusiastic support is more
than enough crush IDN!

And if this sounds like the rant and ravings of a madman,
I guess being the co-inventor of IDN initiative this time eleven years ago,
and seeing an Internet innovation dragged around the way it has been,
I suppose, is enough to drive anyone mad :-)

<rant off>

So, in conclusion, my personal comment are that we should
all support the proposed IDN gTLD constituency initiative.

Tan Tin Wee
Singapore.

PS.(Tan is Family name; Tin Wee is given name using
Chinese-Japanese-Korean-Vietnamese personal name conventions)