Response to Brian Cute

[Lana Andreff <lanaandreff@xxxxxxxxx>]

I want to add mine and to quote some of the previous comments;

1. An IDN GTLD Constituency with governmental members having a form of
voting representation poses challenges with regard to the role of government
within ICANN

It is a bit insincere to suggest that the presence of a few  government
agencies somehow disrupts the structure. As we know, many ccTLDs are run by
governments but that does not stop them from being represented in the ccNSO.
Likewise, many telecom connectivity providers and ISPs are state-owned, and
not only in developing countries. As of June 2008, the German
government still holds a 15% stake in Deutsche Telekom directly, and another
17% through a government bank. In countries like China, nearly all major
enterprises are state-owned. To exclude enterprises from CSG because of
state ownership might exclude entire countries from representation.

2. An IDN GTLD Constituency with restricted membership rights is potentially
discriminatory.
and
3. An IDN GTLD is nothing more than a GTLD

- Why one can see potential discriminatory when we face the need for GNSO
policy changes after Pure-Latin stakeholders had all the time and power to
resolve this issue by now.
It's just  contrary to fact that “non-Latin” users have been well
represented in ICANN community discussions on IDNs.
and appointed regional liaisons who are trusted community members are not
remotely could be representatives or experts of the linguistic issues in the
regions they serve.


- IDNs are various in languages, cultures, audiences, etc. where can
all these differentiations come and decide on their conflicting issues? We
remember IDN WG in ICANN later, but most of the group have been from Latin
based language where IDN is not so different from ASCII. So most of the
decisions have not been mature, and many issues did not ever bring up.

Best regards,

Lana Andreff
IDN Internet consortium INC