Re: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report
The same issue was raised at my table by the board members. The feeling was "if two countries are going to start a war over a domain name, that is their problem. They must pick 1 name." I think there is merit to this view. It was also mentioned that Chinese is a script that is used by a large community in just about EVERY country in the world, so does this mean every country gets a script in Chinese? In the US alone, there are large language communities for probably 10 scripts, giving the US 10 scripts under our rule. I do not believe this is what we intended. And a few other points were raised that need to be dealt with. In particular, the recommendation that "strings must not be confusingly similar" is misplaced. Only technical confusion is the type that should be dealt with here, not general confusion. I agree. This recommendation really does not make sense from a trademark viewpoint (although that is how it is intended), since a domain name, by itself, does not cause confusion, but only with relation to how the domain is used. We are going well beyond technical stability and trying to regulate other things that are outside ICANN's authority. Perhaps we should give more thought to our recommendations before we vote on them. I found the feedback from the board to be enormously useful and we should try to address their concerns before voting. Thanks, Robin On Feb 10, 2008, at 7:39 PM, Norbert Klein wrote: I also agree with Avri's suggestion, where others already consented.At the table I was - and I later talking to people from another table - therewas opposition to the "One IDNccTLD per one script per one language group": "their government should decide to choose just one."I was surprised about the lack of sensitivity on the political/ social/culturalimplications. I argued - as a example - saying that it would be highlydestructive in the presently tense situation, if the Malaysian government would give preference to the Chinese over against the Indian ethnic sectionsof the society by allocating only one IDNccTLD, but this was dismissed as "not ICANN's problem." Norbert - ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: RE: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report Date: Monday, 11 February 2008 From: "Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Agreed. Edmon-----Original Message-----From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner- council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] OnBehalf Of Adrian Kinderis Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 10:11 AM To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report The same issue was raised at our table Avri. I believe your suggested change would be appropriate. Regards, Adrian Kinderis-- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit us regularly - you can find something new every day: http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com Agreed. Edmon-----Original Message-----From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner- council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] OnBehalf Of Adrian Kinderis Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 10:11 AM To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report The same issue was raised at our table Avri. I believe your suggested change would be appropriate. Regards, Adrian Kinderis Managing Director AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd Level 8, 10 Queens Road Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004 Ph: +61 3 9866 3710 Fax: +61 3 9866 1970 Email: adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Web: www.ausregistrygroup.com The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not anintended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any actionin reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. -----Original Message-----From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner- council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, 11 February 2008 12:59 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report Hi, At my table this evening, we had a conversation about Executive summary point #5 - specifically the last phrase "... without GNSO's concurrence" While explaning it this, I explained that it really refered to the need to have have resolved the issue as explained in #2 and the ICANn community had achieved a common agreement of an interim procedure. I am wondering whether we might be to change it to say: " without prior community concurrence" thanks a. IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
|