I have to agree with Mike, I do not think that there is any way of
keeping governments from having their countries name in the scripts
used in their country (or likewise important to their country).
Trying to impose or persuade them to have such "territorial
TLDs"under a GNSO ICANN governed regime if they could have the
liberty to set the rules by themselves does not seem to me a good
use of our time. Lets not kid our self if i.e the USG decides out of
whatever reasons that they want .USA in kanji script there is no way
that a.) ICANN can keep them from doing so a.) that they would
submit them self to the GNSO processes. That holds also true for the
German and Cambodian or in fact every government in the world.
Instead of getting in endless debates with the cc Community and the
GAC about how many TLDs a country can have and what scripts it can
be we should rather engage into discussions on how to come up with a
"new " iso 3166 list or algorithm to make a clear distinction
between cc and g.
Best,
tom
Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Mike Rodenbaugh
Gesendet: Montag, 11. Februar 2008 13:41
An: 'Robin Gross'; 'Council GNSO'
Betreff: RE: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report
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