Colleagues, This is the link to a recent APTLD Report on a survey involving ccTLDs regarding use of IDNs - http://aptld.org/system/files/survey_report_-_launch_and_use_of_idns_2014.pd.... It has statistics from the Asia Pacific and European regions. End user awareness is scored lowest and there is feedback on barriers that limit broad adoption by end users. At the basic level, the problem is that IDNs are not available for use in email, browsers and other applications used by users. Efforts to address the problem are distributed among many parties and they are un-coordinated. There has been some discussions at ICANN on what needs to be done and the role of ICANN. The challenge for ICANN is that it doesn't deal with application level problems. Nevertheless, the successful adoption of IDN TLDs is arguably a success measure for ICANN's TLD programme, so ICANN has a stake in seeing IDNs succeed. Various suggestions have been made on ICANN's role including convene meetings on the topic, raise awareness about the problem through communications channels, gather and centralize information on efforts underway to inform the community, and coordinate the disparate efforts of un-connected parties, etc. *If there are thoughts on what the role of ICANN should be vis-a-vis the role of the community to address the problem of IDN adoption (as part of solving the Universal Acceptance problem), please share.* *APRALO and APTLD: Perhaps a collaboration on way forward to enhance end user awareness and encourage applications developers to meet the market demand? * Best regards, Rinalia <http://aptld.org/system/files/survey_report_-_launch_and_use_of_idns_2014.pd...>
On 9 May 2014 00:09, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>wrote:
The challenge for ICANN is that it doesn't deal with application level problems.
Why not? ICANN's mandate is to promote acceptance of all TLDs. What's the point of rolling them out if the public can't access them and registrants can't maximize use of them? Actually, ICANN has already answered that question through the priorities embedded in the design of the new-gTLD program. If the primary goal of the expansion is to sell domains -- whether they are useful or not -- then support of application-level access is an afterthought. Which is exactly the case. So far within ICANN, "acceptance" has meant "acquisition" and little more. It is IMO *fully* within ICANN's remit to take responsibility for domain-access issues at every level, including (arguably ESPECIALLY including) application-level. However, one might not get that impression given ICANN's moves to reduce the influence of the technical community<http://atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/correspondence-14mar14-en.htm>in its activities. The application-level problems regarding IDNs etc should have been anticipated and addressed by ICANN long ago. Instead of concentrating all of its road-show efforts on enticing new TLD applicants, it should have been also soliciting the global developer community with more than a half-hearted marketing campaign<https://community.icann.org/display/TUA/TLD+Universal+Acceptance+Home>(that just started this year!!). Compare the efforts made to promote IPV6 to all levels (by a different corner of ICANN, with the help of ISOC) to the effort made to implement cross-level support for all TLDs and all scripts. And now, ICANN is reaping what it has(n't) sown. The IDN support program should have been done completely independently from the general TLD expansion, but instead was wrapped into it and has been unfortunately affected by that action. IDNs from ccTLD registries have now been adversely impacted because of the way the gTLD expansion unfolded.
Nevertheless, the successful adoption of IDN TLDs is arguably a success measure for ICANN's TLD programme, so ICANN has a stake in seeing IDNs succeed.
The goal of the gTLD program has been to maximize sales of domains, which to some eyes sufficiently constitutes adoption. Whether these domains are actually usable to end-users or useful to information providers has tended to be an incidental, almost accidental objective. (Were end-users or registrants ever surveyed in advance to find whether a TLD expansion was even necessary, let alone their needs from it?) Anyone following the gTLD program from the At-Large PoV has surely seen this emphasis throughout the program's development and rollout. So "success" depends upon how you measure it. By measures important inside the ICANN bubble, contracted parties having sold thousands upon thousands of useless, speculative, defensive and confusing domains constitutes success. It certainly constitutes revenue. It is quite possible that the lack of concern for new gTLDs shown by the application-development community reflects a broader public indifference to the gTLD expansion that ICANN never really sought to discover (let alone address). And this indifference has affected the uptake in IDNs. One wonders what kind of remedial measures can make up for such a large strategic oversight. It may be up to groups like APTLD to take on the challenge ICANN has not. Or at very least take the leadership role that has been lacking to date. - Evan
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> wrote:
The challenge for ICANN is that it doesn't deal with application level problems. Nevertheless, the successful adoption of IDN TLDs is arguably a success measure for ICANN's TLD programme, so ICANN has a stake in seeing IDNs succeed.
Maybe. But if ICANN were to understand that the application issues impacts not just the health but a 'stable, secure.....' ecosystem then ICANN would be well-advised to find a corner and get to working. In this era of roiled sensibilities and sensitivities ICANN no longer has the luxury of being Potiphar's wife; make a claim to be above reproach. Thanks for sharing, Rinalia. Much obliged. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
Good information. Thanks Rinalia! I might be stating the obvious, however, this is not a problem that is exclusive to the AP region but to the rest of the regions as well. I see it as a chance to advance in a cross-regional effort in order to create awareness and engage different users and technical communities towards addressing the issue. Could we think of ways in which we could collaborate across RALOs to help solve the problem? Maybe a cross-regional workshop at some forum? What are your thoughts? Best regards, León El 09/05/2014, a las 10:07, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> escribió:
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> wrote:
The challenge for ICANN is that it doesn't deal with application level problems. Nevertheless, the successful adoption of IDN TLDs is arguably a success measure for ICANN's TLD programme, so ICANN has a stake in seeing IDNs succeed.
Maybe. But if ICANN were to understand that the application issues impacts not just the health but a 'stable, secure.....' ecosystem then ICANN would be well-advised to find a corner and get to working.
In this era of roiled sensibilities and sensitivities ICANN no longer has the luxury of being Potiphar's wife; make a claim to be above reproach.
Thanks for sharing, Rinalia. Much obliged.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
Hi, Leon. A cross-RALO collaboration would be excellent if there is interest in the respective RALOs to take on this issue. In the past, RALOs have had different prioritization for IDN related issues. I think some awareness-raising is needed among RALOs to help them understand the nature of the problem. It is a problem of relevance to users worldwide. A webinar before ATLAS II in London and / or discussion during ATLAS II in London would be a good opportunity to do it. Would you be willing to help shepherd process (i.e., make sure a discussion happens on the topic)? Best regards, Rinalia On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 1:12 AM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Good information. Thanks Rinalia!
I might be stating the obvious, however, this is not a problem that is exclusive to the AP region but to the rest of the regions as well. I see it as a chance to advance in a cross-regional effort in order to create awareness and engage different users and technical communities towards addressing the issue.
Could we think of ways in which we could collaborate across RALOs to help solve the problem? Maybe a cross-regional workshop at some forum?
What are your thoughts?
Best regards,
León
El 09/05/2014, a las 10:07, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> escribió:
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> wrote:
The challenge for ICANN is that it doesn't deal with application level problems. Nevertheless, the successful adoption of IDN TLDs is arguably a success measure for ICANN's TLD programme, so ICANN has a stake in seeing IDNs succeed.
Maybe. But if ICANN were to understand that the application issues impacts not just the health but a 'stable, secure.....' ecosystem then ICANN would be well-advised to find a corner and get to working.
In this era of roiled sensibilities and sensitivities ICANN no longer has the luxury of being Potiphar's wife; make a claim to be above reproach.
Thanks for sharing, Rinalia. Much obliged.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
participants (4)
-
Carlton Samuels -
Evan Leibovitch -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
Rinalia Abdul Rahim