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

[Andrew Mack <amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Eric,
Thanks for a helpful contribution.  I think some rules may be useful.  My
concern is that the language preservation/recovery function does not need to
be performed only/strictly by a "language recovery or language preservation
institution".

Three reasons why come to mind:

1) because there may not always be such a specifically chartered institution
in all places where it could be useful, or that institution may not have the
capacity to get the job done

2) because the kinds of institutions that might be tasked with this
responsibility (e.g. government or academic institutions) may be politically
captured -- here I'm thinking about the existing divisions in the Amharic
diaspora community that is about 100% at odds with the government of
Ethiopia

3) because I see some real value in having more than one group involved in
language preservation, as this may actually get more of the outcome we want
-- to your point about serving both the diaspora and in-country voices,
which often have different needs and interests, and in the recognition that
even in language preservation, language/ethnic communities often don't agree
on what to do.

Cheers, Andrew


On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 9:36 AM, <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> 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
>



-- 
*
                                                       *

***Andrew A. Mack
**Principal
*AMGlobal Consulting

+1-202-642-6429  amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx
2001 Massachusetts Avenue, NW  First Floor
Washington, DC 20036
www.amglobal.com