Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] On category {ethnic, linguistic, cultural}

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

In a nutshell you don't think it's possible to properly define the terms - and 
I appreciate the logic by which you came to that conclusion.    

Do other members share that view?

If so,  do we intend to leave it open as an 'implementation issue' future 
decisions about which applications are cultural, ethnic, etc and which are not?

RT  

 
On Sep 3, 2010, at 10:13 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> 
> Richard,
> 
> I managed to hear your question and Avri's reply during the call, just before 
> I lost cell connectivity.
> 
> So, starting closest to my heart, Indian ("Native American" in the US and 
> "First Nation" CA) isn't ethnic or linguistic, it is cultural, and more 
> narrowly, recognized by one or both of those Federal governments, and/or one 
> or more of their governments of their inferior jurisdictions (States/US, 
> Provinces/CA).
> 
> If "ethnic" was used to mean "Indian", it might work so long as no one 
> actually cared where the boundaries of the definition lie.
> 
> Can we nail down a single definition of "cultural" sufficient to our needs? 
> Probably not.
> 
> Can we nail down a single definition of "ethnic" sufficient to our needs? 
> Again, probably not.
> 
> What we lack, as a 501(c)(3) California domiciled entity, in easy access to 
> the legal terms of art which define protected classes, or promoted classes, 
> that are not limited to a specific jurisdiction. However, we do have our own 
> basic policy goals, dating back to the Green Paper, of representation.
> 
> PuntCat used the phrase "linguistic and cultural" to express the social, and 
> avoid the political, utility of a registry for the Catalan ... You can say 
> "language and culture" and have one meaning, or you can say "region and 
> economy" and have another. We judged it more prudent to use the former, to 
> avoid political and jurisdictional concerns by the abutting iso3166 possessed 
> governments (Spain, Andorra, France, Italy), chiefly Spain.
> 
> For "language" our task is easier. If the language uses more than Latin 
> letters (without accents), or uses digits to augment the use of Latin 
> letters, then it is not yet represented in the IANA root. Two examples are 
> Diné bizaad (Navajo) and 3arabiya (Arab Chat Alphabet). It gets simpler if 
> the langauge doesn't use Latin Script.
> 
> Another source of definition is the scoring of applications which 
> self-identify as Community-Based. An obvious limit is that this has not 
> utility if not requested by the applicant, or if the application is not 
> self-identified as Community-Based, such as the hypothetical application for 
> a reproductive health delivery service in the Indian Sub-Continent.
> 
> There will be applications which identify as Community-Based which will not 
> qualify for "need" or "representation". An application for lawyers isn't so 
> unlike the circa-2001 application for .pro, and is unlikely to be able to 
> convincingly demonstrate "need".
> 
> This is where we come back to examples, as guidance to the implementers of 
> the policy we recommend, or as misleading to the same implementers.
> 
> I don't want to try and cover (a) to (e) equitably, so I'll stop here having, 
> I hope, answered the "where to we find definitions for ..." question.
> 
> Eric
> 
>