ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-idn-wg]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gnso-idn-wg] RE: Shaban proposals

  • To: rmohan@xxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-idn-wg] RE: Shaban proposals
  • From: "Sophia B" <sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 12:58:49 -0700

Ram,

I have already initiated a thread on 4.1.1 and discussion has started on
it.  Please refer to the sub titled 4.1.
regard,
Sophia


On 19/03/07, Ram Mohan <rmohan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dear Charles and WG members, Please find below my responses to your proposals made yesterday to the WG list.

>- Item 4.1.1: I support the "alternative view" that we should resolve
>IDN policy issues before launch of application round.

+ What is the WG view on this suggestion?  So far, we have said that we
want
to avoid "hostage situations" but we've also said that IDN issues need to
stay a high priority.
+ My personal view is that IDN policy issues should continue to get strong
attention from the GNSO Council.

>- Item 4.1.5: I support the alternative to resolve policy before
>developing priority criteria. I would be very cautious about "lower
>entry barriers" as a way to address this problem, which barriers
>would be lowered? those involving technical issues? security and
>stability? More clarification to the lower entry barriers is needed.

+ I agree that lowering entry barriers needs far more careful study than
has
been done so far.

>- Item 4.2.2: I agree that a country should be able to reserve IDN
strings for the country name. Beyond that, I support the alternative
that countries' rights are limited to their respective jurisdictions.
I strongly agree, however, that the opposition of the established
institutions of a particular language group to a proposed TLD
(whether ASCII or IDN) targeted to that language group should provide
a basis for ICANN to defer or deny the application (I understood that
a similar rule is under study in the new TLDs committee to apply to
economic or cultural sectors, e.g., .bank or .library).

+ I agree regarding country name reservations.  I advocate caution towards
making any statements regarding jurisdiction.
+ I agree regarding ICANN using input from language institutions in its
evaluation process.

>- Item 4.5.4: I support the alternative view that phonetic confusing
similarity should be a basis for refusing an application. There is
plenty of experience under trademark law in resolving conflicts
between words in different languages that sound similar.

+ I am in general support of this also.  Are there dissenting views in our
WG?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ram Mohan
e: rmohan@xxxxxxxxxxxx | m: +1.215.431.0958
--------------------------------------------------------------------------






<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy