ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-idn-wg]


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

RE: [gnso-idn-wg] 4.3.2

  • To: "'Sophia B'" <sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx>, "'GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-idn-wg] 4.3.2
  • From: "Ram Mohan" <rmohan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 06:18:57 -0400

I am concerned about these statements, and find it difficult to lend support
to them.

 

"any selected policy be uniform for all concerned gTLDs"

We have situations today, where different gTLDs have different policies on
numerous issues.  For example, the .ORG gTLD is adopting policies in marked
difference to the .COM gTLD with regard to domain tasting.  Similarly, the
.TRAVEL gTLD adopts different policies to the .AERO gTLD.

 

In general, I think that TLDs should be able to set policies that match
their situation.  I can imagine a future where an Arabic gTLD has to set a
specific set of policies that is quite different than a Chinese gTLD.  The
statement above unnecessarily hamstrings such gTLDs, with very little
discernible benefit.

 

"such a policy is approved by ICANN before hand."

My concern with this statement, as drafted, is that it seems to preclude any
other policy that is developed after the approval of a given gTLD.  We know
that ICANN is unlikely to approve all new gTLDs at the same time.  The
wording above is written so that ICANN cannot approve any new gTLD until
after all policies are developed.  This sounds quite impractical.

 

As a result, although the general idea behind the proposal is interesting,
in my opinion, we are very mistaken in attempting to adopt such a point of
view.

 

-Ram

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ram Mohan

e:  <mailto:rmohan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> rmohan@xxxxxxxxxxxx | m: +1.215.431.0958
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Sophia B
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 9:11 PM
To: gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx; GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-idn-wg] 4.3.2

 

4.3.2 

 

I though this minor change of adding a clause to this alternative view would
allow both flexability for the gTLDs operators while reducing any possible
confusion. 

 

Alternative view; to afford latitude for gTLDs to set policy for IDN SLDs on
condition that any selected policy that is uniform for all concerned gTLDs
and that such a policy is approved by ICANN before hand.

  

Sophia



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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy