Dear Darlene, this is a matter I work intensively on for at least eight full years (and started operating real international services 26 years ago). The matter is complex as there are roughly 26,000 language entities identified by our FLO LS640 standard (http://linguasphere.eu) which was the basis for the ISO 639-6 proposed standard before we extended it. This lead us to identify a new discipline in linguistics which is multilinguistics. In the language diversity linguistics considers languages and multilinguistics considers the diversity. To use several languages in parallel. We started a research unit on this (MLTF) and working on a shell Draft on what to do to bring a dying language to an Internet emergence. Usually, one think that a language must have 100.000 speakers to have a chance to survive. Information industry would like to stabilize 150 languages (for many economic reasons) in using the Internet as a "filter" (RFC 4647). At MAAYA (http://maaya.org) we consider that the Internet can be used in such a way as to keep alive languages of 10.000 speakers, help revive many ancient languages and probably help developing many new ones. Languages influence the way you build your brain. This is why your IQ is higher in your mother tongue. This is also why some mental processes are easier in some languages. For example, Aymara is the only language which as not Yes/Not but Yes/Not/Possible. Kids live in a probalistic world. There also are TBT issues (Technical barrier to trade) that demand reciprocity in access language markets. This actually means there is a need for millions of geocultural TLDs (gcTLDs) to be supported, simply because geocultural documentation sorting does exist. I produced an Draft on it as part of a general ML-DNS solution approach a DNS as good in every language as in English/ASCII. (http://ml-dns.org/draft-mltf-jefsey-cctags-01.txt). You can understand that languages are the wealth of their community. Who would want to lose money they represent. Only the fools who did not understand yet their dollar, commercial and political value. Don't worry language community already has its gcTLD slot. However, we currently are in stand-by as the problem is : (0) not to disrupt the Internet, its operations and economy. (1) understand the position of ICANN (ML-DNS is a france@large WG and the reason why we are not accepted in ALAC) (2) to coordinate with Vint Cerf's IETF/WG-IDNABIS if we want to keep the ML-DNS interoperable with IDNA (3) to organise a way geocultural entities can be present at the IETF and participate to the Internet standardization process. (4) to document and test a DNS Virtual root to support gcTLDs and gvTLD (Government TLD) aside of ICANN, in a way similar to the other non-ICANN TLDs (cf. ICANN ICP-3 document, China, .GPRS, etc). All what we know for sure is that language technologies will most probably authenticate individual authors within the 10 coming years and everyone has a different brain with different ways to understand concepts (they are then call notions). This means that we have to be prepared to support one way or another billions of languages when working on semantic processing and semantic multilingual interneting. This means that the real problem is not ICANN, but IETF. Not the language lists (we have them), not the TLD Governance (they are the equivalent of family names and everyone knows how she is named and which language she uses), not the TLD management fee (it obviously must be free as people owns their names and forename), not the ICANN's future (this has to be discussed thought the ALAC with other users) but to get an architecture for the DNS to support it and evolve towards the many DN related services to come, once the DNS is considered as secure (and not "DNSSECtarian"), ICANN now favors an "Internet for the Rich", wanting to sell TLDs to famous TM owners. This is quite ambiguous as in addition it wants to auction the TLDs. It has now to come with a coexistence proposition with the "People centered Internet for the People by the People". ALAC's job is to sell this proposition and help ICANN adapting it. jfc At 12:21 07/11/2008, Thompson, Darlene wrote:

Hi Vittorio,

One thing in your e-mail below really stood out to me and I would like to ask you a question. This is a question only and should not be taken as me disagreeing with you. Rather that we, in Nunavut, Canada, are facing a similar problem with an ancient language disappearing and I would like to compare notes with you as an open discussion.

The language to which you refer - are only the elderly speaking it or are there any children that regularly use it at home and at play?

Here's why I ask: In Nunavut, we have 25 VERY remote communities (total Inuit population of about 26,000). In the smaller communities, I hear the children outside playing and they are speaking to each other in Inuktitut. That means that the language has at least one more generation left. In the capital, though, the children are speaking English. That means that the language is already evaporating there and their children will not be speaking it. To this end, the Department of Education is attempting to make it mandatory that Inuktitut be the language of instruction to at least Grade 5 (with classes in English slowly being introduced as the grade levels increase). This will mean that the language will continue to be a working language and won't die (or so we hope and are leveling best efforts to do).

So, if the children in the language that you are discussing have already lost it and there are no efforts at teaching that language, how will having a domain name dedicated to that language help? IMO it will only help a dedicated few because, from what I have seen, the average person just doesn't care. The elders do but the children do not.

Again, I ask this to generate discussion because this is an issue very near and dear to my heart (and my regular work) and I would like to hear other's input into it.

Thank you,

D

________________________________

From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Fri 11/7/2008 3:43 AM To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [At-Large] My comments on new gTLDs and the role of ICANN

Since yesterday I could not make my comments at the Public Forum, I sent them by email to the Board, and I am publishing them here. -----

Dear Board of ICANN,

as I was standing in line yesterday morning in the Public Forum, but due to prior commitments was not able to attend the "ad hoc" afternoon session to express my views, I am sending them directly to the Board, copying the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and ALAC Liaison so that at least one of them can forward my message to the Board list, and I will publish them somewhere for yesterday's audience.

Before I get to my point of substance... I guess that several people already expressed their discomfort for what happened yesterday. However, please let me reiterate that the Public Forum, where the community and the Board discuss in plenary mode about the main topics of the moment, is one of the most fundamental elements of ICANN's legitimacy and accountability. Everyone knew since the beginning that at this meeting the Public Forum would have been crowded and well attended, and the decision to allot just one hour for it, then letting VIP speeches eat even more into it, is a terrible mistake. I urge the Board to make sure that there is ample time for Public Forums at every ICANN meeting - given that this situation happens often, I see a need for clear directions to staff by the Board.

Now - I would like to comment as a wannabe applicant for a gTLD application which may or may not materialize, but that constitutes a good proof for the remaining flaws in an otherwise well thought-out draft RFP. Its main purpose is to save an ancient language and culture which have been existing in my part of Italy for about a thousand years, but which will disappear forever in twenty years or so, together with the elderly people that still embrace them, unless we can succeed in transitioning them to the Internet age.

A small group of volunteers has been working pro bono for years to create online resources in this language - including, for example, a Wikipedia edition. The existence of a gTLD specifically devoted to that culture and language would make in our opinion a huge difference. It would boost the sense of identity and community, and provide a visible home to gather all efforts. However, this will clearly not be a business opportunity - it is imaginable that initially the gTLD would have just a few dozen registrations, which we would gladly give away for free through a non-profit vehicle.

I think that what we would like to do is a deserving purpose, at least as good as yet another dot com clone, and possibly better than the abundant defensive registrations of any kind that we will see. To run a TLD with such a few registrations, there is no need for big staff and huge server farms - in fact, we are confident that we could get all the time, skills and technical resources as volunteer work and in-kind donations. However, even if we succeeded in this, we would still be facing an impossible task to raise $185'000 now and $75'000 each year just to pay ICANN fees, and we would likely score very badly against operational and financial criteria designed for multimillionaire global ventures.

Yet, if you think that what we are trying to do is obsolete, amateurish or unimportant, please think again. This is the way all ccTLDs and gTLDs started prior to the ICANN era, and most of them have become pretty successful by now; actually, the only ones going for bankruptcy lie among those picked by ICANN through its carefully drafted RFP processes. This is actually the way almost every innovation happens over the Internet, still today.

The Web? It wasn't invented by CERN, it was invented at CERN, by a couple of individuals, in their spare time, as a byproduct of their real job. Instant messaging? Peer to peer? Even innovations that overturned billionaire industries were invented by one or a few individuals with no money at all, or at most by small garage startups. What would happen to innovation if the IETF required $185'000 to submit a new Internet draft?

I understand that there are costs attached to the establishment of a new TLD, though $185'000 per application, even in an expensive country like Italy, is enough to hire five or six people for one year for each application, and one wonders why do you need all that work; and $75'000 per year to keep a TLD in the root, where the work required in the absence of special events is literally zero, is plainly ridiculous. However, if you want to extract money from rich applicants going for remunerative global TLDs, or from big corporations with deep pockets trying to protect their brand, that's fine; but please don't make other uses impossible.

There are several pricing structures that could address this issue: special prices for non-profit applicants, lower fees for TLDs that don't reach a minimum number of registrations, or panels in cooperation with appropriate organizations (say, UNESCO) to "bless" applications that have specific cultural or technological value. Several people have promised to submit practicable proposals in the next few weeks. But it is paramount that ICANN doesn't sell out the domain name space without putting in place features to address this issue.

In the end, while applicants will be judged by the RFP, ICANN will be judged by the overall set of TLDs that it will add into the root. It may get 500 or more of them, but if 90% of them will be private corporate registrations, and the rest will be dot com clones with some kind of vague specialization, ICANN will have failed.

But, looking also at other aspects, I am also afraid that the failure might end up being much deeper. ICANN is becoming a well managed business entity, through increased staffing and the introduction of corporate best practices. However, ICANN is not just a business entity - it is a strange beast with much more than that into it. What is optimal for a business corporation might actually make parts of the community feel not at home any more; and might make ICANN lose touch with its roots, with the nature and spirit of the Internet. If this happens, ICANN is doomed - all the governmental deals and business partnerships won't be enough to preserve its prestige and credibility.

I see as one of the primary strategic roles of the Board that of ensuring that the decentralized, flat and free nature of the Internet is preserved, or at least not attacked, by the policies that ICANN adopts, and even that these policies contribute to, or at least do not stifle, the fulfillment of Millennium Development Goals and other worthy objectives in terms of development and human rights. These are not just high sounding words, they carry a meaning that must trickle down into everything ICANN does when it comes to policies. When you are tasked with a fundamental role in coordinating the Internet, there's more to life than business as usual. Please do not forget this.

Thanks, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/>

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org