ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[At-Large Advisory Committee]


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

Re: [alac] New gTLDs analysis -- IDN

  • To: "Interim ALAC" <alac@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [alac] New gTLDs analysis -- IDN
  • From: "Dr Xue Hong" <hongxue@xxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 16:13:53 +0800

I hope we may continue our discussion on this topic, though I cannot check
emails every day in "atypical" situation.

If IDN gTLDs genuinely affect the interests of those non-English speaking
users, there is no reason to keep those users away from the decision make
process. Shall we go down to the fundamental purpose of creating IDN TLDs?
Is it purporting to serve those non-English speaking users, for current TLDs
are inconvenient to them, or even impossible to be used by them? Or, is it
simply to create a new market for those current *stakeholders*?

If the mission of the "At Large" is to let those users who have no other
channel to participate the ICANN process to get in and get heard, then the
(interim) ALAC should, of course, speak for those inarticulate non-English
users. No need to worry for those commercial companies, for they have
numerious channels and connections to the ICANN.

No matter for *design* of the evaluation criteria and processes and the
*application* of these criteria, the opinion of the people who are going to
use the IDNs should be fully respected.

I agree with VB that the point is "how to
practically ensure such participation in the process", such as letting "each
character set 'mapped' to a sort of coordination forum made by the local
communities
so that, each time non-ASCII characters are
involved, the related coordination forum may express its opinion on this. "

 The fact that "IDN ccTLDs could take some of the pressure from IDN *g*TLDs"
cannot become the excuse for not allowing the users to participate in
evaluation of IDN gTLDs.

P.S. I attach a small part of the "Table for Chinese characters" to show why
the LgTLD evaluation process shouldn't basically be applicable. Without the
participation of the language community, do you think the table can be
effectively used for "no harm" evalution?

Hong

Attachment: CCMT.doc
Description: MS-Word document



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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy