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

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't agree completely. Either ICANN manages the root or it doesn't.
My personal opinion is that any TLD entered into the ICANN managed root
should all be done so under the same rules and conditions. I did not
bust my behind for the last seven years to see all that we've built
slowly go down the drain because the ccTLD name space overwhelms the
gTLD space due to a more favorable competitive environment. I have no
problem with the ccTLD space competing fiercly with the gTLD space, but
it should be on an equal basis to the extent possible.

Whether ICANN or anyone else likes to call it regulation or not, the
fact is that the gTLD space is heavily regulated. The ccTLD space is
not. That said, I feel that:

1. It is unlikely that we can stand in the way of one ccTLD-like IDN
being allocated per ccTLD, nor should we try. However, the WHOLE
community should be equally involved in the process that defines how
that's done, not just the ccNSO. The fact that it is likely these new
ccTLD-like IDNs will be operated under ccTLD rules, not gTLD rules is an
argument FOR full and equal community involvement, not against it.

2. There needs to be a continual review of the results of such
allocations and the effect on the supposed competitive environment that
ICANN espouses to support in its bylaws. Such review very well may
indicate that the relaxing of certain policies and regulations within
the gTLD space, for both registries and registrars, is required to
maintain an even playing field.

Finally, all the FUD about split roots, independent roots, etc. is just
that, FUD. That may very well happen regardless of what's done here. But
ultimately, if that happens, consumer demand, user demand, money,
whatever will eventually require they all work together somehow if they
want to succeed long term.


Tim 


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: AW: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report
From: "Thomas Keller" <tom@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, February 12, 2008 6:39 am
To: "'Mike Rodenbaugh'" <mxrodenbaugh@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Robin Gross'"
<robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

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