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...>
Thank you for this Rinalia. This report was produced to coincide with APTLD’s forthcoming meeting in Oman where Universal Access will take up 1/3 of the meeting and IDN ccTLDs another large chunk. I am aware of ICANN’s constant battle to avoid scope creep and applaud them for the great constraint that this has shown. There was a JIG report on the role that ICANN could play. In the recommendations the most practical was for ICANN to show leadership, to make sure that it’s own systems were compliant, to make sure that the systems of its contracted parties were compliant, and to ask its leadership team to include this in discussions with heads of states, governments, software companies, etc. (I’m paraphrasing the recommendations - details will be found somewhere on the new ICANN website. Having said that, they have two staff assigned to the topic of Universal Acceptance. There has been a call within the APTLD community for a “Global Alliance” to address the issue. Depending on what we find out in Oman, this may move forward. I think it would be useful for ICANN to participate in the Global Alliance. APTLD & APRALO have a recently signed MoU and we have already put this into action, sharing with the APRALO the details of APTLD’s program for our meeting as well as reports from other fora. This is a challenge that no one person or organisation will be able to solve. It is a solution of many parties. What we can do as a group to coordinate our activities. Don On 9/05/2014, at 4:09 pm, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> wrote:
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
Don Hollander General Manager gm@aptld.org
Thanks Rinalia. These are real problems indeed, and the end user community has yet to benefit from the IDN programme, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region. We are planning a workshop at the forthcoming Delhi APrIGF around the theme of challenges in implementing IDNs, particularly from the South Asia perspective (as it has perhaps the highest linguistic diversity in the world). I'd request you to share your thoughts at the APrIGF on the ways of addressing these issues. satish On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> wrote:
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...
_______________________________________________ IDN-WG mailing list IDN-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg
IDN WG Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+IDN+Policy
I agree totally that this problematic issue also opens up opportunity especially for collaborative approaches to some Regionally 'home grown ' solutions... Perhaps we should workshop some ideas in a fora at APrIGF as a complementary activity to Satish's w'shop, as well as other opportunities... The APNIC #38 meeting in Sept in Brisbane perhaps they have called for papers today... CLO from my Mobile phone On 09/05/2014 2:25 pm, "Satish Babu" <director@icfoss.in> wrote:
Thanks Rinalia. These are real problems indeed, and the end user community has yet to benefit from the IDN programme, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region.
We are planning a workshop at the forthcoming Delhi APrIGF around the theme of challenges in implementing IDNs, particularly from the South Asia perspective (as it has perhaps the highest linguistic diversity in the world). I'd request you to share your thoughts at the APrIGF on the ways of addressing these issues.
satish
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> wrote:
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...
_______________________________________________ IDN-WG mailing list IDN-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg
IDN WG Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+IDN+Policy
_______________________________________________ IDN-WG mailing list IDN-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg
IDN WG Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+IDN+Policy
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
I am with Evan in this approach. In my view, if IDN are having problems to reach the users, hence not generating competition, ICANN should engage to see if there is a technical or competitive problem and both are , to my view, inside the role of ICANN. My 0.2 cents. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 On 5/9/14, 3:11, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> wrote:
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-e n.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 _______________________________________________ IDN-WG mailing list IDN-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg
IDN WG Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+IDN+Policy
The application and acceptance of IDNs, including IDN TLDs, are, in a large part, dependent on the technical development and deployment of the relevant language community. The domain name resolution and email application for Chinese-character IDN and TLDs are working fine in the big Chinese communities . It is true it is not "universally" accepted in any part of world, but IDNs are primarily for the use within the relevant language community. Of course, ICANN should, firstly, support the language community bottom-up initiatives, and secondly, stimulate the universal acceptance in the one world one Internet. I'm not sure whether all the IDNs are mature in the second phase. Hong Professor Dr. Hong Xue Director of Beijing Normal University Institute for Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Co-Director of UNCITRAL-BNU Joint Certificate Program on International E-Commerce Law http://www.iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 2:27 AM, Vanda Scartezini <vanda@uol.com.br> wrote:
I am with Evan in this approach. In my view, if IDN are having problems to reach the users, hence not generating competition, ICANN should engage to see if there is a technical or competitive problem and both are , to my view, inside the role of ICANN. My 0.2 cents.
Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
On 5/9/14, 3:11, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> wrote:
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-e n.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 _______________________________________________ IDN-WG mailing list IDN-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg
IDN WG Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+IDN+Policy
_______________________________________________ IDN-WG mailing list IDN-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg
IDN WG Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+IDN+Policy
An important aspect with respect to my region is the computer or technical literacy of people to actually type in the IDN in the local language or persian script. It is much easier for persian fluent countries like Afghanistan and Iran to type in persian script IDNs but for Pakistan its a different case. Pakistan came out of a colonial British India and thus had a tradition of using English and Urdu however, with the adoption of technology and widespread proliferation of English as a second official language, the majority use English as the language of communication or Urdu typed in English and thus the majority of use so far is in English. I just came back from the Asia Internet Symposium yesterday organized by ISOC and ISOC Islamabad Chapter in Islamabad where one of the issues discussed was that the high levels of illiteracy also contribute to lack of efforts towards digital literacy so in short, IDNs may be very slow in starting in this part of the world however they may have strong use in the Persian and Arabic fluent countries leaving out Pakistan. On the other hand, the situation will also be different for India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka where they have local language fluency to a great degree. The issue of linguistic diversity per se is not in ICANN's agenda but to increase the level of acceptance of IDNs definitely is. This stands as a major issue with respect to user rights. On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 7:10 AM, Hong Xue <hongxueipr@gmail.com> wrote:
The application and acceptance of IDNs, including IDN TLDs, are, in a large part, dependent on the technical development and deployment of the relevant language community. The domain name resolution and email application for Chinese-character IDN and TLDs are working fine in the big Chinese communities . It is true it is not "universally" accepted in any part of world, but IDNs are primarily for the use within the relevant language community. Of course, ICANN should, firstly, support the language community bottom-up initiatives, and secondly, stimulate the universal acceptance in the one world one Internet. I'm not sure whether all the IDNs are mature in the second phase.
Hong
Professor Dr. Hong Xue Director of Beijing Normal University Institute for Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Co-Director of UNCITRAL-BNU Joint Certificate Program on International E-Commerce Law http://www.iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 2:27 AM, Vanda Scartezini <vanda@uol.com.br> wrote:
I am with Evan in this approach. In my view, if IDN are having problems to reach the users, hence not generating competition, ICANN should engage to see if there is a technical or competitive problem and both are , to my view, inside the role of ICANN. My 0.2 cents.
Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
On 5/9/14, 3:11, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> wrote:
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-e n.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 _______________________________________________ IDN-WG mailing list IDN-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg
IDN WG Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+IDN+Policy
_______________________________________________ IDN-WG mailing list IDN-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg
IDN WG Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+IDN+Policy
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
-- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
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* =============================
The reputation of IDN's on the security and stability front is about to take another hit. PIR is launching .org in multiple languages, but the existing IDN registrants in .org are NOT being grandfathered into the new versions, even though PIR was preaching equity and stability in 2006. "Principles for the Foundation of Top Level IDNs" http://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/pir-idn-principles-23jun06-en.pdf Later this month, PIR will be allowing different registrants for the existing пример.org and the upcoming пример.орг even though they have always said that .org = .संगठन = .орг = .机构 That's not going to help IDN's case at all. On 10/05/2014, at 3:07 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
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* ============================= _______________________________________________ IDN-WG mailing list IDN-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg
IDN WG Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+IDN+Policy
ICANN has so far no mechanism to review or supervise any gTLD registry's registration policy (especially for open TLDs). PIC-DRP's can address the issue to some extent but will be very limited. Hong Professor Dr. Hong Xue Director of Beijing Normal University Institute for Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Co-Director of UNCITRAL-BNU Joint Certificate Program on International E-Commerce Law http://www.iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Andy Gardner <ceo@andygardner.com> wrote:
The reputation of IDN's on the security and stability front is about to take another hit.
PIR is launching .org in multiple languages, but the existing IDN registrants in .org are NOT being grandfathered into the new versions, even though PIR was preaching equity and stability in 2006.
"Principles for the Foundation of Top Level IDNs" http://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/pir-idn-principles-23jun06-en.pdf
Later this month, PIR will be allowing different registrants for the existing пример.org <http://xn--e1afmkfd.org> and the upcoming пример.орг even though they have always said that .org = .संगठन = .орг = .机构
That's not going to help IDN's case at all.
On 10/05/2014, at 3:07 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
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* ============================= _______________________________________________ IDN-WG mailing list IDN-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg
IDN WG Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+IDN+Policy
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
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...)
I think it is very important for ICANN to take the issue of "Universal Acceptance of IDN" seriously and take a central role in the coordination and facilitation of bringing together the stakeholders so that the issue can be addressed. The issue in my mind is 2 fold, including 1. a technical side and 2. an advocacy side After many years of discussion, I strongly believe ICANN is the right forum and place for this coordination and gathering of stakeholders to take place, even as ICANN itself nor its immediate community can "solve" the issue. Following from the JIG Final Report on the issue, of which of course I was very much involved, I hope that ICANN could make this a strategic item, at the level (at least) of advocating for IPv6 and DNSSEC. Also, we must start with our own community, the registries and registrars and make sure we have those systems for which ICANN policies can directly influence to be fully IDN aware so that users can not only register IDNs but use them at least to setup nameservers, dns hosting, web hosting and emails. In my mind, the ideal approach ICANN could take would be to convene a community wide steering group that would include participants from all organs of ICANN, including ALAC, GAC, ccNSO, GNSO, SSAC, RSSAC in fact ASO as well, but not stop there, ICANN should also help invite participants from other parts of the Internet community including application level organizations e.g. WITSA, as well as W3C, IETF, etc. The group should work with an ICANN staff team to produce: 1. A set of best practices for IDN Acceptance in systems (based on and consolidating from the experience already in the community) 2. Set of measurements of IDN Acceptance (so we can continue to track and measure our progress) 3. Continued study measuring IDN Acceptance on the internet (including domain registries and registrars) The group does not need to meet all the time like GNSO working groups, we just need to meet maybe 2-3 times a year and keep track of the progress and to make sure we move forward methodically. Such meetings could ideally coincide with ICANN meetings, again where we would invite other parts of the internet community to join. Well... the above is my wish :-D ICANN board seems have not considered the JIG report yet and am not sure what their schedule or priority level is on the issue... Though, here at the APTLD meetings, I heard encouraging presentation from Ed Lewis of ICANN that finally there is a change in the attitude of ICANN staff that ICANN has a role to play in this. In any case, as mentioned briefly in Singapore, I think maybe ALAC can take the lead on forming that community wide steering group... Edmon
-----Original Message----- From: idn-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:idn-wg-bounces@atlarge- lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rinalia Abdul Rahim Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 8:36 AM To: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Cc: Carlton Samuels; No name; ALAC Working List; Don Hollander; apralo Subject: Re: [IDN-WG] [ALAC] The Problem of IDNs
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+Committe e+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ IDN-WG mailing list IDN-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg
IDN WG Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+IDN+Policy ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4570 / Virus Database: 3931/7441 - Release Date: 05/05/14
Thank you Rinalia and all, To carry on from Edmons comment, I think the advocacy side of this argument is crucial in order for this agenda item to be handled at the right level. I also agree that this is and should rightfully be attached to the universal acceptance issue. I think Leon point with the RALO's is a valid one, but let's not delude ourselves here, much bigger influencing and marketing forces are required if we are serious about this. So maybe a good starting point to the 'moving forward' discussion needs to take place at ATLAS II - Can this be part of the formal agenda, or is it too late now? Raf On 12 May 2014, at 06:26, Edmon <edmon@isoc.hk> wrote:
I think it is very important for ICANN to take the issue of "Universal Acceptance of IDN" seriously and take a central role in the coordination and facilitation of bringing together the stakeholders so that the issue can be addressed.
The issue in my mind is 2 fold, including 1. a technical side and 2. an advocacy side
After many years of discussion, I strongly believe ICANN is the right forum and place for this coordination and gathering of stakeholders to take place, even as ICANN itself nor its immediate community can "solve" the issue.
Following from the JIG Final Report on the issue, of which of course I was very much involved, I hope that ICANN could make this a strategic item, at the level (at least) of advocating for IPv6 and DNSSEC.
Also, we must start with our own community, the registries and registrars and make sure we have those systems for which ICANN policies can directly influence to be fully IDN aware so that users can not only register IDNs but use them at least to setup nameservers, dns hosting, web hosting and emails.
In my mind, the ideal approach ICANN could take would be to convene a community wide steering group that would include participants from all organs of ICANN, including ALAC, GAC, ccNSO, GNSO, SSAC, RSSAC in fact ASO as well, but not stop there, ICANN should also help invite participants from other parts of the Internet community including application level organizations e.g. WITSA, as well as W3C, IETF, etc.
The group should work with an ICANN staff team to produce: 1. A set of best practices for IDN Acceptance in systems (based on and consolidating from the experience already in the community) 2. Set of measurements of IDN Acceptance (so we can continue to track and measure our progress) 3. Continued study measuring IDN Acceptance on the internet (including domain registries and registrars)
The group does not need to meet all the time like GNSO working groups, we just need to meet maybe 2-3 times a year and keep track of the progress and to make sure we move forward methodically. Such meetings could ideally coincide with ICANN meetings, again where we would invite other parts of the internet community to join.
Well... the above is my wish :-D ICANN board seems have not considered the JIG report yet and am not sure what their schedule or priority level is on the issue... Though, here at the APTLD meetings, I heard encouraging presentation from Ed Lewis of ICANN that finally there is a change in the attitude of ICANN staff that ICANN has a role to play in this.
In any case, as mentioned briefly in Singapore, I think maybe ALAC can take the lead on forming that community wide steering group...
Edmon
-----Original Message----- From: idn-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:idn-wg-bounces@atlarge- lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rinalia Abdul Rahim Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 8:36 AM To: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Cc: Carlton Samuels; No name; ALAC Working List; Don Hollander; apralo Subject: Re: [IDN-WG] [ALAC] The Problem of IDNs
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+Committe e+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ IDN-WG mailing list IDN-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg
IDN WG Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+IDN+Policy ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4570 / Virus Database: 3931/7441 - Release Date: 05/05/14
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
Rafid A Y Fatani Eng. MA. Ph.D. (Exon) Policy and Stakeholder Relations Director ------------------------------------------------------------ Disclaimer This message and its attachments are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, please email the sender and delete this message and any attachments from your system. Further, you should not disclose, copy, distribute or use this message and any attachments.
If all of the ALAC agrees, you can squeeze it into the Agenda item. Sala On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:37 AM, Rafid A. Fatani <raf@sasiconsult.com>wrote:
Thank you Rinalia and all,
To carry on from Edmons comment, I think the advocacy side of this argument is crucial in order for this agenda item to be handled at the right level. I also agree that this is and should rightfully be attached to the universal acceptance issue.
I think Leon point with the RALO's is a valid one, but let's not delude ourselves here, much bigger influencing and marketing forces are required if we are serious about this.
So maybe a good starting point to the 'moving forward' discussion needs to take place at ATLAS II - Can this be part of the formal agenda, or is it too late now?
Raf
On 12 May 2014, at 06:26, Edmon <edmon@isoc.hk> wrote:
I think it is very important for ICANN to take the issue of "Universal Acceptance of IDN" seriously and take a central role in the coordination and facilitation of bringing together the stakeholders so that the issue can be addressed.
The issue in my mind is 2 fold, including 1. a technical side and 2. an advocacy side
After many years of discussion, I strongly believe ICANN is the right forum and place for this coordination and gathering of stakeholders to take place, even as ICANN itself nor its immediate community can "solve" the issue.
Following from the JIG Final Report on the issue, of which of course I was very much involved, I hope that ICANN could make this a strategic item, at the level (at least) of advocating for IPv6 and DNSSEC.
Also, we must start with our own community, the registries and registrars and make sure we have those systems for which ICANN policies can directly influence to be fully IDN aware so that users can not only register IDNs but use them at least to setup nameservers, dns hosting, web hosting and emails.
In my mind, the ideal approach ICANN could take would be to convene a community wide steering group that would include participants from all organs of ICANN, including ALAC, GAC, ccNSO, GNSO, SSAC, RSSAC in fact ASO as well, but not stop there, ICANN should also help invite participants from other parts of the Internet community including application level organizations e.g. WITSA, as well as W3C, IETF, etc.
The group should work with an ICANN staff team to produce: 1. A set of best practices for IDN Acceptance in systems (based on and consolidating from the experience already in the community) 2. Set of measurements of IDN Acceptance (so we can continue to track and measure our progress) 3. Continued study measuring IDN Acceptance on the internet (including domain registries and registrars)
The group does not need to meet all the time like GNSO working groups, we just need to meet maybe 2-3 times a year and keep track of the progress and to make sure we move forward methodically. Such meetings could ideally coincide with ICANN meetings, again where we would invite other parts of the internet community to join.
Well... the above is my wish :-D ICANN board seems have not considered the JIG report yet and am not sure what their schedule or priority level is on the issue... Though, here at the APTLD meetings, I heard encouraging presentation from Ed Lewis of ICANN that finally there is a change in the attitude of ICANN staff that ICANN has a role to play in this.
In any case, as mentioned briefly in Singapore, I think maybe ALAC can take the lead on forming that community wide steering group...
Edmon
-----Original Message----- From: idn-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: idn-wg-bounces@atlarge- lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rinalia Abdul Rahim Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 8:36 AM To: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Cc: Carlton Samuels; No name; ALAC Working List; Don Hollander; apralo Subject: Re: [IDN-WG] [ALAC] The Problem of IDNs
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+Committe e+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ IDN-WG mailing list IDN-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg
IDN WG Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+IDN+Policy ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4570 / Virus Database: 3931/7441 - Release Date: 05/05/14
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
Rafid A Y Fatani Eng. MA. Ph.D. (Exon) Policy and Stakeholder Relations Director ------------------------------------------------------------ Disclaimer
This message and its attachments are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, please email the sender and delete this message and any attachments from your system. Further, you should not disclose, copy, distribute or use this message and any attachments.
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro Director Pasifika Nexus P.O Box 19179 Suva *FIJI* Cell: +679 7656770 Tel: +679 3544828 E: sala@pasifikanexus.nu Website: www.pasifikanexus.nu
Hello, everyone. I trust that you have seen the CircleID article on Universal Acceptance of All TLDs by Stephane Van Gelder and the APTLD Oman meeting report on IDN, which I circulated earlier today. Next milestones to move the agenda forward on this issue for the At-Large: 1. ATLAS II Summit - the frame of the agenda could not be changed at this point for Saturday and Sunday (21-22 June). I would suggest that the issue be brought up by community members from the floor in relevant sessions so that others can be made aware of what this issue means to users of the global Internet. 2. A 30 mins briefing and discussion will be held on Monday 23rd June 2014 during the ALAC Meeting Hot Topic 3 - Universal Acceptance of IDNs - with Edmon Chung and Rinalia Abdul Rahim (16:45-17:15) (Moderator: Olivier Crépin-Leblond). 3. ICANN-staff organized session on the topic of Universal Acceptance - I expect a session will be held in London. Do attend that session as well to provide input to ICANN from the end user's perspective. Best regards, Rinalia
participants (14)
-
Andy Gardner -
Carlton Samuels -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Don Hollander -
Edmon -
Evan Leibovitch -
Fouad Bajwa -
Hong Xue -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
Rafid A. Fatani -
Rinalia Abdul Rahim -
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro -
Satish Babu -
Vanda Scartezini