[ga] RE: IDNs & the GNSO New TLD PDP

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Vint,

Let me pose a somewhat delicate question.  We are in
the midst of discussing selection criteria for new
gTLDs.  As we start thinking about allowing additional
TLDs for each countrycode TLD where scripts other than
Roman characters are needed, are we not asking for a
lot of trouble if we take up the work of such IDNs
within a gTLD discussion framework as you seem to
suggest?

I know that you gingerly sidestepped the
jurisdictional question earlier (and I hate to press
the point if you're uncomfortable talking about it),
but historically, gTLD selection criteria winds up
becoming imbedded into contract language, and yet we
know that less than 5% of all ccTLDs are currently
willing to work on the basis of either a contract or
MOU with ICANN.

Can we really expect ccTLD operators that will launch
such IDN services to comply with a RFP that spells out
typical selection criteria (such as proof of ample,
firmly committed financial resources), or expect such
ccTLD operators to sign a contract with ICANN as a
precondition to entering an IDN in the root?

Don't you think that it would be more appropriate to
refer these type of considerations for vetting by the
ccNSO before the GNSO takes up such issues?  


--- Vint Cerf <vint@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Danny,
> 
> I am not a fan of alternate roots and recognize the
> challenge as regards
> IDNs. In the Vancouver meeting it seemed to me that
> we made some progress on
> thinking about allowing one additional TLD for each
> countrycode TLD where
> scripts other than Roman characters were needed. In
> that sense, we might
> move ahead of the new TLD general questions.  I
> continue to believe,
> however, that the general treatment of IDNs ought to
> be taken up in the work
> on new TLDs. 
> 
> Vint
> 
> 
> 
> Vinton G Cerf
> Chief Internet Evangelist
> Google/Regus
> Suite 384
> 13800 Coppermine Road
> Herndon, VA 20171
>  
> +1 703 234-1823
> +1 703-234-5822 (f)
>  
> vint@xxxxxxxxxx
> www.google.com
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 12:54 PM
> To: vint@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: IDNs & the GNSO New TLD PDP
> 
> Vint,
> 
> Perhaps you could weigh in on these questions...Your
> answers might help to
> clarify my thinking as to whether IDNs should or
> shouldn't be considered
> within the GNSO New TLDs PDP.
> 
> In the IDN forum, Abdulaziz Al-Zoman, Chairman of
> the Steering Committee of
> the Arabic Domain Name Pilot Project, reported that
> "We have two alternate
> root servers, one in Saudi Arabia and one in the
> United Arab Emirates".  He
> also stated, "The duration of the project is open. 
> So until we have a
> worldwide implementation or recognition of Arabic
> domain names, this pilot
> project will continue."
> 
> My first question is as follows:  within the context
> of the GNSO PDP on new
> TLDs, are we to regard such a namespace as a future
> sTLD that is awaiting
> ICANN approval (in that like .cat it appears to have
> a sponsoring community
> that has created it for cultural and linguistic
> reasons), or are we to treat
> it as a namespace that awaits a process to be
> instigated by the ccNSO?
> That's the jurisdictional question...
> 
> The second question pertains to my worry that if
> ICANN fails to act quickly,
> these pilot projects will soon become permanent
> alternate roots (which has
> its own set of implications):  Would you advise us
> to consider IDNs on a
> preferential basis, perhaps ahead of other new
> gTLDs, in order to mitigate
> the risk of a potentially bifurcated root?
> 
> 
> 		
> __________________________________________
> Yahoo! DSL - Something to write home about. 
> Just $16.99/mo. or less. 
> dsl.yahoo.com 
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com