Veni, The question seems to be this: "What fast-track approach will best serve the user interest?" Will a fast-track IDN process that provides an IDN to a ccTLD registry operator (with perhaps a less-than-stellar performance track record) be preferable over a different fast-track approach that might call for abiding by the principle of competition? Yes... I'm reminded that at one point ICANN actually did have principles... Anyway, you doubtless will recall one of the recommendations of the earlier Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) Committee: "The committee concludes that no distinctions should be drawn between ASCII and non-ASCII new TLDs the process that is used for new ASCII TLDs (as refined over time and with experience) should equally apply to new non-ASCII TLDs (once the technical standard is completed and deployable at the TLD level). The key elements of that process are: open call for proposals, defined criteria for selection, independent review by technical and financial experts, and full transparency of all proposals. The committee sees no reason why these elements could not apply equally to non-ASCII TLD proposals, with some added criteria for selection, perhaps focusing on the proposed registry's plans to meet the needs of (and make policy for) the language communities to be served by a given TLD string in a given script." http://www.icann.org/committees/idn/non-ascii-tld-paper.htm Do we actually need a geographic-unit-based fast-track approach at all? I can't see why this would be preferable to an open call for IDN TLDs through a standardized new TLD process (that has pretty much already been formulated by way of the GNSO efforts in this area). --- Veni Markovski <veni@veni.com> wrote:
Here's comment from the .bg ccTLD:
Veni,
My comment on this is short: Anyone who has come to a new market, can claim anything. You know this better than many.
The reality is, that although policies of Register.BG may not be perfect, they are the result of our now 17 years of operation as an TLD registry. Even if some of the restrictions in place are not popular, they in fact reflect the reality in Bulgaria and the constraints by existing laws and common practices. The same is valid for any other registry in any other country (not counting the commercial registries). Register.BG has always considered the stability and good standing to be more important that commercializing the BG TLD and this has as direct implication the reduced number of domains registered in BG. The quoted numbers are however wrong, with BG registrations underestimaed and non-BG registrations exagerated.
Register.BG has always followed the developments of the TLD services, as well as introduced new revolutionary services over the years. Today, TLD registries do not design policy and invent services on their own, but rather cooperate both within their constituency, as well as with great many external policy making bodies. It is our understanding, that "the incumbent country code registry" has the best possible knowledge of what is proper to do in order to provide stable naming of subjects in Internet. Which is the primary reason for existence of the registry, not the desire to make more money fast. This is why, in part Register.BG advocates the fast track implementation of IDN TLDs. Register.BG is well prepared to implement Bulgarian IDN TLD, both technically and in with proper policy to encourage mass deployment.
Daniel
At 08:17 19.12.2007 -0800, Danny Younger wrote:
http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2007/12/18/3416813.html
Adding to the growing questions about the wisdom of
P.S. from Veni. Putting this note on the internetgovernnace.org web site alone is an interesting thing.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping