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

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Vint,

on the topic of upper bounds for IDN TLDs, if "for the
present the suggested number is one" then I would
think that selection criteria becomes rather important
-- what type of IDN gets selected (and who makes that
selection, the registry operator or ICANN)?.  

I recall the Discussion Paper on Non-ASCII Top-Level
Domain Policy Issues that identified categories of
potential TLD strings based on the semantic meaning of
the string itself:

1. Semantic association with Geographic Units 
2. Semantic association with Languages 
3. Semantic association with Cultural Groups or
Ethnicities 
4. Semantic association with Existing Sponsored TLDs 
5. Semantic association with Existing Unsponsored TLDs

6. Everything else.

http://www.icann.org/committees/idn/non-ascii-tld-paper.htm

Do you recall whether this earlier IDN Committee made
any specific recommendations as to the best way
forward?  Sorry, I couldn't find their follow-up work.



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

>  Danny,
> 
> I think the IDN matter splits into several parts.
> For gTLDs, IDNs are
> potentially much harder to solve. There might be
> more than one French
> restriction table developed by France, Senegal,
> Canada where potentially
> different dialects of French are spoken. To take
> Canada for example, it
> could conceivably have a single TLD (.CA) and have a
> restriction table for
> French (if one is needed) as it is written in Canada
> for registrations in
> .CA. The restriction table might differ from the one
> developed by France or
> Senegal. A gTLD, such as .info, might have to choose
> among several possible
> tables or develop its own for registrations in
> French. 
> 
> For ccTLDs, then, it would appear valuable for all
> those ccTLDs who wish to
> accept registrations in a given script and language,
> to work together as the
> Chines, Japanese and Koreans have. They developed a
> common CJK plan. 
> 
> I did not intend in my earlier remarks to suggest
> that the ccTLD operators
> has to comply with the ICANN contract for gLTDs. I
> only meant that the new
> gTLD process should include provision for non-Roman
> scripts (ie IDNs). I
> agree with you that the ccNSO should take up the
> question of IDNs for
> themselves. I also think that it is important to
> place an upper bound on the
> allowed number of additional TLDs using non-Roman
> scripts. For the present
> the suggested number is one. 
> 
> This won't quite satisfy all needs since some
> countries have more than one
> official language and many may want registrations in
> other unofficial
> languages that are widely in use. In the US, where
> English is the official
> language, there is a considerable spanish speaking
> population, for example.
> 
> 
> 
> 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
>  


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