Re: Section 3.6 Work in Progress Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Section still wanting words

[Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe@xxxxxxxxx>]

In my humble opinion, this problem of linguistic community must be tempered.
In fact, in reality and respect the importance and role of language in
most traditional African societies in sub-Saharan Africa, it will
examine the types of existing structure and authorized to discuss the
eligibility of a language.
The relationship between registries-registrars are not yet fully
established in most countries.

I opt for point (B) the original applicant for a community of language
must be a party that is associated with or derived organically from
this community, and is limited to the needs and parties qualified
location.

Baudouin

2010/10/5, Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> All,
>
> Andrew and I spoke for about 90 minutes yesterday morning, and we've
> exchanged email this morning. This is simply my impression at this
> point in time:
>
> First, there are several examples of bundling, examples where the
> simple "one application, one string" statement has been overtaken by
> events. These are:
>
>       o multiple strings for China, to solve the SC/TC equivalence problem
>
>       o multiple strings for Saudi Arabia, to solve Arabic Script variant
> character problem
>
>       o multiple strings for Greece, to solve the Greek Tonos problem
>
> Second, we are in agreement on everything except whether an acceptable
> outcome is:
>
>       (a) the initial applicant for a language community may be any party
> which seeks to offer registry services using the associated script and
> language, and is not restricted to needs and location qualified parties,
>
> or
>
>       (b) the initial applicant for a language community must be a party
> which is associated with or arises organically from that community,
> and is restricted to needs and location qualified parties.
>
> My impression is that Andrew, and possibly Richard, consider that one
> registry in a Script and language will encourage subsequent, and
> competitive, applications for the same Script and language. Hence the
> discount, tied to the size of the language community in nominal
> percentages, made available to non-qualified applicants.
>
> My concern is the case where the community is capable of supporting a
> registry, and the relationship of the eligibility policy to the
> community is at risk if the eligibility policy arises externally. As a
> hypothetical, the .cat trajectory may have been less satisfactory if
> the policy for .cat were made by the .es (Spain) registry operator, or
> by Verisign, rather than by Fundatio PuntCat.
>
> Perhaps this is a "growth will cure error" position and a "error may
> prevent growth" position.
>
> My view is that if the benefit is limited to qualified applications,
> each qualified applicant will use it completely for the advancement of
> their community, and not attempt to "assist", or capture, some other
> language community, prior to the development of "ICANN awareness" and
> the capital accumulation necessary for an application by the second or
> subsequent communities.
>
> Everything else I'm confident that either Andrew or I could hold the
> pen to the satisfaction of the other, there is only this one issue to
> address, and his view may be the better one.
>
> I suggest people think a bit about these two alternatives and let
> Andrew or I know.
>
> Eric
>


-- 
SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN)

Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571
                           +243811980914
email:                   b.schombe@xxxxxxxxx
blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr