Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] A modest proposal

[Elaine Pruis <elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Is this under consideration for addition to our WG report?

I'm trying to understand this, help me out here:

> ask the GAC if it will reconsider its positions on both regional  
> identifiers, and on linguistic and cultural diversity, as if  
> regional identifiers are permitted, many otherwise excluded  
> linguistic and cultural groups can obtain the goal of their script  
> and language being present as a top-level domain as a regional  
> identifier, e.g., "africa" as two or more labels in Latin Script and  
> Arabic Script, or as a second-level domain under the appropriate  
> directional label for a regional identifier.
does this mean swahili.africa (IDN'd)?
Can you give some examples? I don't understand the mixing of the  
second and top levels in the statement.
" We propose a couple of applications in some kind of public  
"linguistic" interest so that more languages are benefited by the  
current new gTLD round."
In what way does the ccTLD fast track for IDNs not fulfill this need?   
The costs are much less, which seems to be the roadblock in the  
statement?
"The Board has responded that no policy goal is more important than  
revenue maximization."
Really?  Where/when was this stated?

Thanks

Elaine


On Oct 12, 2010, at 4:31 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> All,
>
> This is inspired by discussion with Andrew, who seeks to ensure that  
> scripts and languages aren't ignored absent applications arising  
> organically from the language community ...
> ... and the ugly reality that the Board is functioning as a  
> kleptocracy.
> We have proposed that fees are reduced for reasons of policy. The  
> Board has responded that no policy goal is more important than  
> revenue maximization.
> We have to find non-fee mechanisms.
>
> One is simply to find the money to pay the kleptocracy their  
> $185,000, for each application which is qualified.
> There are other possible means.
>
> I mentioned that a .africa will need an Arabic Script label, as well  
> as a Latin Script label, and to answer to Andrew's concern, a Ge'ez  
> Script label, and ...
> If there is a round after the current round (which assumes the  
> "current round" happens), then regional registry operators can  
> incrementally add labels, and therefore scripts and languages, in  
> the next round.
> To provide a path for any script lacking a current round applicant  
> it is sufficient to create a current round "meta-application"  
> capable of offering the script for second-level labels*.
> For script directionality reasons (really a bug in the Unicode  
> bidirectional algorithm which treats "." as punctuation, allowing  
> directionality to "leak" across label separators), one "meta- 
> application" would have to be in a right-to-left script, and one  
> "meta-application" would have to be in a left-to-right script.
> We know that the Board will insist on their $185,000, and then some  
> when the implied costs are totaled, for both the left-to-right and  
> the right-to-left script incubator applications.
> Left-to-right labels and recently right-to-left labels are available  
> from ccTLD operators, and the GAC is broadly favorable to the  
> proposition that linguistic diversity should not be priced out of  
> existence or deferred.
> However, the coordination of two or more second level domains is  
> technically challenging, and the prospect of coordinating an Arabic  
> Script ".africa" (shown in Latin Script) label in each of the 22  
> ccTLDs which use Arabic Script may pose greater recurring cost than  
> the one-time payment of $185,000 to ICANN for a single Arabic Script  
> ".africa" label.
> I propose we ask the GAC if it will reconsider its positions on both  
> regional identifiers, and on linguistic and cultural diversity, as  
> if regional identifiers are permitted, many otherwise excluded  
> linguistic and cultural groups can obtain the goal of their script  
> and language being present as a top-level domain as a regional  
> identifier, e.g., "africa" as two or more labels in Latin Script and  
> Arabic Script, or as a second-level domain under the appropriate  
> directional label for a regional identifier.
> If the GAC agrees, then they, and we, will have routed around the  
> damage imposed by the Board.
> If the GAC does not agree, then several arbitrary labels are  
> sufficient to meet the needs for all scripts to be used in name  
> spaces, at the second level, promoting the use of the script and the  
> languages written in each script.
> I propose we inform the stakeholders -- the GNSO, the ASO, the  
> CCNSO, and the GAC, as well as others -- that a few fully supported  
> applications in "the linguistic interest" would be sufficient to  
> help all living languages achieve the vital success that .cat has  
> created for the Catalan language.
>
> So that's the modest proposal. We propose a couple of applications  
> in some kind of public "linguistic" interest so that more languages  
> are benefited by the current new gTLD round.
> Eric
>
> * Weirdly enough, a few months after Jon Postel proposed using  
> iso3166 as the means of spreading the zone file editing work across  
> more people than just he, he and I met in San Diego and I pointed  
> out that there are groups that are "nations" but lack iso3166 code  
> points, and that if we added seven regional identifiers to the  
> country codes we would eliminate "statelessness" in the DNS.
Elaine Pruis
VP Client Services
elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
+1 509 899 3161