[gnso-idn-wg] Item 4.3.4 Subbiah
Item 4.3.4 I notice that there has been some previous debate on this before my joining this WG by a few people , particularly on one of the previous call recordings. My impression was that there had been some support/agreement of the notion that sponsored gTLDs should be treated no differently than “commercial” IDN gTLDs from the point of view whether a single “worthy” applicant should be given the ASCII version and all IDN-equivalent (meaning same concept) gTLD strings in every language. This seems not to be reflected in the current support statements. My own two cents on this: (1) Sponsoring organizations, while reasonably global, may not represent EVERY country in the world and so not deserving of every language. (2) Supporting organizations that maybe global may not actually clearly enjoy the full support of all portions of society and government. For instance, the private sector airline association in a given member country where the market is regulated maybe told by the Air Force that it is the rightful owner of .aero in that language. (3) The widely and incorrectly shared view that “sponsored” somehow means “non-profit” can be shown to be quite untrue with the example of “.jobs” – a sponsored gTLD. Thus, what may pass or be acceptable as sponsored in one country may not be acceptable in a another culture. e.g. Singapore has a Ministry of Manpower (i.e. jobs). (4) Given the troubling ICANN history in registries/applicants pushing the limits or re-interpreting what was initially understood to be the case, setting any precedent that a single applicant can get more than a single language gTLD (i.e. Non script-variant) in one go (ie. equivalent meanings), would be going down a slippery slope that will no doubt someday lead to its adoption eventually in commercial “gTLDs” as well. (5) Best to let every sponsor of a gTLD apply for every language equivalent IDN gTLD separately, making the case separately, as if it were just another non-sponsored gTLD application and let the merit of each language request speak for itself alone. Given these views I have, I would like to see a new statement at Agreement, Support or at the very least an Alternative View that captures my own thoughts and what I believe was mentioned in previous discussion. For starters it could be something like the following: "All gTLD applications should be treated on a case-by case-basis and no special provision should be given to the concept of “sponsored gTLDs” since a candidate gTLD string that may be considered “sponsored” in one language/culture may not be considered as such across all languages/cultures."
|