RE: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <mxrodenbaugh@xxxxxxxxx>]

I would be fine with concept of an IDN ccTLD for any string that is a
'meaningful representation of a country name.'  I understand there is work
to define that and to provide a challenge procedure, but think that should
not be very difficult.  The toughest part I envision is to ensure that words
that are languages can be gTLDs, i.e. .hebrew or .korean in those scripts;
even though .israel or .korea in those scripts would be proper ccTLDs.  If
ccNSO and GAC commit that they will not request any additional strings
beyond representations of country names, then we should not stand in the way
of those.  

 

In answer to Robin's question whether any/every country should get an IDN
ccTLD in Chinese, I think that would be fine, just as they all have one in
ASCII.

 

Thanks,

Mike

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Robin Gross
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 4:13 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report

 

I see that my statement below has a typo that should be corrected on the
issue of the number of scripts per country.  

 

I did not mean "if two countries are going to start a war over a domain
name, ..."   

 

I meant, if two COMMUNITIES within a country are going to start a war over a
domain name..."    

 

Further on this point, I don't think we should succumb to the threat, "if
you don't give us what we want, we will kill each other".   That does not
strike me as the kind of principled argument we should bow to.

 

Robin

 

 

On Feb 10, 2008, at 9:49 PM, Robin Gross wrote:





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 -
there 

was 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/cultural 

implications. I argued - as a example - saying that it would be highly 

destructive in the presently tense situation, if the Malaysian government 

would give preference to the Chinese over against the Indian ethnic sections


of 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] On

Behalf 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] On

Behalf 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 an

intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action

in 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





 

 

 

 

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