[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Re: On "bundling" (was: comment on the Andruff Bundling Letter)

[ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Tijani,

I plan to speak with Ron Andruff today to see what he and I can agree on that
will meet our mutual goals of lowering the barrier for applications for labels
intended to serve users of minority languages which must have a string in
Latin script and a string in a non-Latin script, and meet our mutual concern
that incumbent operators, and others, will attempt to reduce their cost of
market entry by any means, which may includ exploiting assistance offered
to meet regional, economic, jurisdictional and cultural diversity goals.

I think a "rule" that may be useful is if the non-Latin script is the subject
of a language recovery or language preservation effort or similar, and the
application is made by a language recovery or preservation institution, and
the use of the Latin script label space is subject to periodic review to
measure the correlation between the labels in the non-Latin script of the
language subject to the recovery or preservation program, and where there is
little correlation, the two gTLDs are subject to retroactive reconsideration
of any assistance received.

Example 1: Cherokee Language Recovery, Latin and Cherokee Syllabics

Example 2: Cree, etc., Language Preservation,  Latin and Unified Canadian
Aboriginal Syllabics (UCAS)

Examples 3/4/... : Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, etc., Languages Preservation in the
Diaspora, Latin and Arabic scripts

I don't intend this as a distraction from JAS work, and my next activity for
the day is redlining the MR3 draft, but if you or anyone else who is a JAS
contributor, or observer, can suggest example cases to test the ideas of
public service, and exploit limiting, please write me a note.

Eric