RE: [council] Bundling of IDN versions of TLDs

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

As noted, this has come up a few times already earlier. So far there
hasn't been any practical soution offered to mitigate the potential for
gaming and/or anti-competitive applications. It is a little late to try
and resolve this now as it's clear it is a complicated issue that would
take considerable time to resolve.


Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [council] Bundling of IDN versions of TLDs
> From: Ching Chiao <chiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, May 17, 2011 8:16 pm
> To: Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> (The following was also posted on RySG list earlier)
> 
> As most of you know that this issue has been addressed in the 2004 .asia sTLD 
> application http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/stld-apps-19mar04/asia.htm ;. DotAsia 
> will be happy to support this -- some may recalled that the similar concept 
> of IDN gTLD fast track to support existing TLD operators to apply for 
> associated IDN name. There&#39;s definitely other policy issues which it can 
> take another year or two to resolve. 
> 
> 
> However, this is a little bothering for some as this statement is from BC 
> rather than from NCSG or ALAC (which could make Adrian feel that this is land 
> grabbing). Also, the CJK language / ccTLD communities did not sign up and 
> this makes the statement less persuasive. 
> 
> 
> Just my two cents.
> 
> Ching
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 6:18 AM, Adrian Kinderis  wrote:
> Have everyone seen this?
> 
>  
> http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/andruff-et-al-to-dengate-thrush-beckstrom-11may11-en.pdf
>  
> This is, in my opinion, ridiculous.
>  
> This is an incredibly slippery slope to even bother with and we have covered 
> this ground before.
>  
> This is nothing more than a real estate grab by those that stand to benefit 
> from it (and the usual suspects they have been able to rope in to �support� 
> them).
> 
>  
> I thought the GNSO sorted out this issue a long time ago. Did VeriSign just 
> decide how much it was going to cost to go for .com in every script all of a 
> sudden?
>  
> 
> It is really simple. You cannot clearly define the meaning of every word in 
> English as it directly relates to other scripts.
>  
> So, if I went for .auto does that mean I get .auto in Arabic � what is the 
> EXACT translation for that? Do you get everything close? How close does it 
> have to be?
>  
> What about the reverse? What if I go for .auto in Arabic (whatever that is) 
> does that mean I get .car, .automobile, .auto, .autobus etc etc in ASCII?
> 
>  
> Finally, .music in ASCII) is not the same as .music (Arabic version). It is 
> promoting competition. What amazes me is no one receives any bundled TLD�s 
> when they register under .com right now. VeriSign allows for separate 
> registrations in each script. If they are the same, why don�t they give each 
> registrant every IDN variant?
>  
> I would really like to make a stand on this as a Council. This rule has been 
> included in EVERY version of the guidebook. Now we are nearing the finish 
> line these folks would prefer to make a wholesale change to their benefit.
>  
> What are the thoughts of the Council?
>  
>  
> Adrian Kinderis
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>