Re: [gnso-idn-wg] Addition to Section 4.2.1

[Tan Tin Wee <tinwee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I had wanted to have 4.2.1 revised as follows:
Support for both
(a) considering any local or regional pre-existing deployments
of IDN gTLDs, such as the experimental IDN system developed by
the Arab League, the Chinese language community and other
communities in a smaller scale,
and
(b) not penalising them in the IDN gTLD application process,
when introducing new IDN gTLDs,
so as to avoid potential confusion or backlash.

which sounds pretty unwieldy,
but then I relooked at Avri's comments, and I think I like her
concise and incisive statement better (please subtract for my obvious
bias as the oldest pioneer of IDN deployment on this list)

Section 4.2.1
"Agreement that the pioneers in IDN deployment should not be
penalized and that ICANN must do its utmost to support work
that has gone on in the absence of centralized support."

tin wee

Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
> Unfortunately I will be on a plane during the Friday special meeting, so
> decided i would put my comments/issues into an email message.
> As opposed to going through then by category, as makes sense in the
> meetings, i will just got through the sections where i have questions or
> comments numerically.
[snipped]
> ---4.2.1
> I agree that the pioneers in IDN deployment should not be penalized and
> that ICANN must do its utmost to support work that has gone on in the
> absence of centralized support.
 [snipped]
> thanks
> a.



Yoav Keren wrote:
> This is a good addition. I totally agree with Avri's point. I think that
> this final wording should be supported.
>
> Yoav
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: subbiah [mailto:subbiah@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 3:51 AM
> To: Hong Xue
> Cc: Yoav Keren; gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-idn-wg] Addition to Section 4.2.1
>
>
> I agree with Hong Xue's paraphrasing a bit to define Chinese community 
> in a broader context than simply China. It happes also to be correct.
>
> Additionally I was wondering there maybe Support or even Agreement  to a
>
> point that Avri Doria raised in her  consolidated commenst sent last 
> week to the mailing list. She specifically looked at this 4.2.1 issue 
> and stated something that went much further than merely "considering" 
> previous launches. At thr risk of quoting her wrong I beleive she said 
> in essence,
>
> "Previous deployments and experimentations in local regions, carried out
>
> prior to any consensual globally coordinated IDN deployments like that 
> being now considered by ICANN,  should not be penalised during an 
> ICANN-led gTLD application process".
>
> I actually think that would be a helpful addition to the current Support
>
> statement, If  so, a suitable re-re-wording maybe  as follows, with my 
> further insertions in ALL CAPS.
>
> Section 4.2.1
>
> Support for BOTH considering AND  IN  THE IDN gTLD APPLICATION PROCESS 
> NOT PENALISING any local/regional pre-existing developments regarding 
> IDN gTLDs, for example, the experimental IDN system developed by the 
> Arab League, ***Chinese language community and other communities in a 
> smaller scale*** when considering introduction of new IDN gTLDs, ***to 
> avoid potential confusion/backlash.***
>
> Cheers
>
> Subbiah
>
> Hong Xue wrote:
> >  
> > Dear Yoav,
> >  
> > Thanks for raising this point. I second your suggestion and recommend 
> > to paraphrase it a bit further.
> >
> > Section 4.2.1
> >
> > Support for considering local/regional pre-existing developments 
> > regarding IDN gTLDs, for example, the experimental IDN 
> > system developed by the Arab League, ***Chinese language community and
>
> > other communities in a smaller scale*** when considering introduction 
> > of new IDN gTLDs, ***to avoid potential confusion/backlash.***
> >
> > Hong, ALAC Liaison 
> >  
> > On 3/18/07, *Yoav Keren* <yoav@xxxxxxxx <mailto:yoav@xxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> >     Ram, Olof, all,
> >     The issue in section 4.2.1 is an issue that was probably brought
> >     up during a call that I have missed. First I would like to state
> >     my own support for this view. Second, I think we should elaborate
> >     a little more and add more examples and clarification to this
> >     point. I would like to offer the following wording, which is the
> >     original one with two short additions marked between 3 stars:
> >
> >     Support for considering local/regional pre-existing developments
> >     regarding IDN gTLDs, for example, the experimental IDN system run
> >     by the Arab League, ***China and other countries in a smaller
> >     scale*** when considering introduction of new IDN gTLDs, ***to
> >     avoid potential confusion/backlash.***
> >
> >     Thanks,
> >     Yoav