<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Updated 2.15.3 - for Tuesday 12 Oct 10 mtg. Re: [] Revision 2.15 -
- To: Andrew Mack <amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Updated 2.15.3 - for Tuesday 12 Oct 10 mtg. Re: [] Revision 2.15 -
- From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 08:52:07 -0400
All,
I think we're dealing with two disjoint issues:
1. recognizing that some applications must, to avoid harm to plural
societies, put into operation two or more strings, possibly in
different scripts.
This is simply a repeat of the experience of the IANA root operator,
which has recently added scripts other than Latin, and now is
developing policy for pluralities extending the Latin and one
non-Latin script model.
2. recognizing that only some communities are aware of, or attach
credence, or importance to the possibility that their language and
script may be added to the IANA root.
In the first case the "bundle" of labels which are necessary and
sufficient to avoid harm to a plural society allows ICANN, should it
accept our recommendation, the best available means to extend the
domain name system to the next billion users without actively
discouraging through pricing the diversity of each plural society.
In the second case the pricing incentive is intended to cause
non-qualified applicants to commit their reduced fee resources to a
language and script for which no other application exists.
A problem with this approach is that the design of the application
process conceals all applications until after the application window
is closed.
The use case here are communities which are not primarily
linguistically plural, but are politically plural, and dysfunctional
as linguistic communities, and possible as political entities as well.
The example we've used is Amharic (Unicode 1200–137F), the second
largest Semitic language, after Arabic, though bundling Amharic with
Arabic and Latin for an African regional application will meet the
underlying rational without recourse to a non-qualified applicant.
In principle the discussion is useful, but given the Board's choice
concerning fees, operationally moot. We have to look elsewhere for any
assistance to applicants.
Regrets for today's call, today is a travel day for me.
Eric
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|