Re: [alac] New gTLDs analysis -- Draft

[Thomas Roessler <roessler-mobile@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2003-04-28 16:11:09 +0800, Dr Xue Hong wrote:

> IDN ccTLDs, of course, are extremely important to the "language
> communities". However, is it necessary to explore this issue in
> the evaluation for new "gTLDs"?

The point I was trying to make is that the availability of IDN
ccTLDs could take some of the pressure from IDN *g*TLDs -- if "safe"
name spaces are guaranteed to be available, mistakes made elsewhere
might be more tolerable.

> IDN gTLDs are substantially different from Latin gTLDs, not only
> because the former involves much more complicated technical
> issues, but also because the implementation of a IDN gTLD depends
> on the linguistic rules developed within the language community,

That's why I was specifically referring to the equivalence tables
which already exist (or are being worked on) for the second level.
Couldn't these be re-used on the root level?

> and in some circumstance, needs the cordination of the countries
> or regions in the same language community. 

Could you elaborate on these circumstances?

> Considering that creation and implementation of IDN gTLDs are so
> closely related to the language communities that they are, by
> nature, not suitable to be "evaluated" by the stakeholders in
> GNSO, 

I agree on that -- in fact, I'd argue that *any* stakeholder
involvement with the evaluation of any individual TLD proposals
would be fundamentally wrong, since it would carry politics into a
process which should be simple, fact-based, and fair.  (Don't get me
wrong: I'm all for stakeholder involvement with the *design* of the
evaluation criteria and processes.  What I strongly object to is
stakeholder involvement with the *application* of these criteria.)

> or incorporated in the new (Latin) gTLD evaluation process.

I don't understand why the LgTLD evaluation process shouldn't
basically be applicable, possibly with some technical tweaks, like
incorporating character equivalence considerations with the process?

Regards,
-- 
Thomas Roessler                 <roessler-mobile@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>