Re: [At-Large] ALAC Statement for the ICANN Board Request for Responses
Dear all, I have concerns with regard to the answer provided to question #7 (cited below): Q.7: Should a list of IDN ccTLD strings be mandated? A universal mandating should not be implemented at the initial stage. Users have the right to use IDNs rather than a duty to do so. Neither the automatically converting ISO 3166 into an IDN list solution is far from being realistic: this would impose some ccTLDs that have no demand for IDN use to implement them, which is obviously contradictory to the purpose of IDNs. Also, compiling a mandatory list would slow down the IDN development process. The crucial question at this stage is how the local community consensus can be reached in case IDN implementation is necessary. One solution to that is the proposal by APTLD, which states that it is important to allow each interested existing ccTLD to propose ONE string and provide six months for Internet community at Large including the affected Communities and Governments to voice possible objections and/or comments. If no serious reservations are aired then the string may go into the root. However, even though a list of IDN ccTLD can be complied through the one-string-one-ccTLD approach it cannot be a final solution, and if made mandatory, it will cause serious rivalry between different script users in one ccTLD territory. Issues related to that include: What makes one script may be chosen over others in a multiple-script ccTLD territory? Is this reflected in the local cultural or social policy/strategy? How those minority script users can protest against this and will they protest? My comment: Stability is my primary concern. From a stability perspective I see an ongoing value in an authoritative "mandated list", and yes, I also do understand the reticence to invoke the ISO processes (as these can easily take 3-5 years) owing to the fear the IDN gTLDs could be launched prior to the conclusion of the ISO effort (and people might indeed choose to opt for a gTLD in a local script). To resolve this worry, I would advise the development of a policy that prohibits the launch of IDN gTLDs until such time as the ISO effort is complete (so that competition may proceed thereafter on a level playing field). The issues raised in the latter portion of the current answer to question 7 are precisely why an ISO "mandated list" should be used (as the process resolves such issues before a list becomes authoritative). ____________________________________________________________________________________ Catch up on fall's hot new shows on Yahoo! TV. Watch previews, get listings, and more! http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/3658
Hello Danny, A few remarks about your comments on ALAC statement on IDNs: 1. To many, slowing down the implementation of IDN gTLDs is neither possible nor desirable. The concern has generally been the opposite, that ICANN has been too slow in this field. So instead, let us hasten the implementation of IDN ccTLDs to catch up with gTLDs. 2. There is no reason to treat the ISO list as anything sacrosanct. When Internet and DNS started, a need was felt to assign each territory a TLD,and the ISO list was almost tailor-made for that. The situation with IDN is totally different. Many territories and countries don't need IDNs, while some others have multiple needs due to ethnic and linguistic diversity within the territory. I am pessimistic that a list can be drawn up in the near future because of the political implications of such an official list. A general-purpose official list of language/scripts assigned to a territory will need the ratification of too many players, but an Internet-specific list would be less controversial and perhaps even tolerable to governments that do not want to give official recognition to a minority but would tolerate a minority TLD. 3. Your concern about stability is of course very legitimate. The recent movements by ccNSO can perhaps alleviate some of your worries. While trying to start a full-fledged PDP for IDNcc's, ccNSO(in tandem with GAC)is seeking a limited fast-track implementation of cc IDNs carefully planned not to include any element that would possibly run into conflict with the outcome of the PDP. These should be unveiled in Los Angeles. Siavash
Dear all,
I have concerns with regard to the answer provided to question #7 (cited below):
Q.7: Should a list of IDN ccTLD strings be mandated?
A universal mandating should not be implemented at the initial stage. Users have the right to use IDNs rather than a duty to do so. Neither the automatically converting ISO 3166 into an IDN list solution is far from being realistic: this would impose some ccTLDs that have no demand for IDN use to implement them, which is obviously contradictory to the purpose of IDNs. Also, compiling a mandatory list would slow down the IDN development process. The crucial question at this stage is how the local community consensus can be reached in case IDN implementation is necessary. One solution to that is the proposal by APTLD, which states that it is important to allow each interested existing ccTLD to propose ONE string and provide six months for Internet community at Large including the affected Communities and Governments to voice possible objections and/or comments. If no serious reservations are aired then the string may go into the root. However, even though a list of IDN ccTLD can be complied through the one-string-one-ccTLD approach it cannot be a final solution, and if made mandatory, it will cause serious rivalry between different script users in one ccTLD territory. Issues related to that include: What makes one script may be chosen over others in a multiple-script ccTLD territory? Is this reflected in the local cultural or social policy/strategy? How those minority script users can protest against this and will they protest?
My comment:
Stability is my primary concern. From a stability perspective I see an ongoing value in an authoritative "mandated list", and yes, I also do understand the reticence to invoke the ISO processes (as these can easily take 3-5 years) owing to the fear the IDN gTLDs could be launched prior to the conclusion of the ISO effort (and people might indeed choose to opt for a gTLD in a local script).
To resolve this worry, I would advise the development of a policy that prohibits the launch of IDN gTLDs until such time as the ISO effort is complete (so that competition may proceed thereafter on a level playing field).
The issues raised in the latter portion of the current answer to question 7 are precisely why an ISO "mandated list" should be used (as the process resolves such issues before a list becomes authoritative).
____________________________________________________________________________________ Catch up on fall's hot new shows on Yahoo! TV. Watch previews, get listings, and more! http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/3658
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
------------------------------------------------- IPM/IRNIC P.O.Box 19395-5564, Shahid Bahonar Sq. Tehran 19548, Iran Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80; 22 82 80 81, ext 113 Cell: (+98 912)104 2501 Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00 Email: shahshah@irnic.ir, shahshah@nic.ir -----------------------------------------------
Hello Siavash, ICANN can act based on what it considers to be "reasonable cause". One example of reasonable cause cited in the bylaws is "the promotion of effective competition". Competition is not "effective" if one set of players can obtain a market advantage by having their class of TLDs launched before another set of players is ready. In the IDN world, do we really want to see an advantage given to either IDN gTLDs or to the IDN ccTLDs by having one of these groups launched before the other? While everyone recognizes the need to move forward and expeditiously with the implementation of IDNs, shouldn't we be considering the implications of "unfair advantage" on the marketplace? The current schedule for the release of new gTLDs seems to be in advance of the scheduled release of new ccTLDs (even if a fast-track IDN ccTLD approach is adopted). Doesn't that concern you? Personally, I think that slowing down the implementation of IDN gTLDs is indeed possible (if we choose to respect the principle of competition based on a level playing field). With regard to the issue of an ISO list, just as RFC 1591 states: "The IANA is not in the business of deciding what is and what is not a country", so too should we be asserting: "The IANA is not in the business of deciding what is and what is not a country's set of territorial scripts" -- this truly should be a matter for a standards body to determine through its processes. I remain of the view that ICANN, in its role as technical manager of the DNS, should only act when such a list is properly compiled. regards, Danny ____________________________________________________________________________________ Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC
Danny Younger ha scritto:
While everyone recognizes the need to move forward and expeditiously with the implementation of IDNs, shouldn't we be considering the implications of "unfair advantage" on the marketplace?
I think there is a cultural disconnect here. The Chinese, the Arabs, the Russians and all the other peoples who are eager to start using IDN TLDs are not particularly interested in competition (in fact, some of these countries have economies which are still heavily nationalised, especially in the telco sector). Removing one disadvantage that stifles diffusion of the Internet in their countries - the inability to use in URLs their script only - is much more important to them than any possible distortion in market competition, and I would find it unfair for ICANN to reverse this priority order. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
Danny Younger wrote:
In the IDN world, do we really want to see an advantage given to either IDN gTLDs or to the IDN ccTLDs by having one of these groups launched before the other?
Maybe. But on the other hand, playing the devil's advocate here, by artificially delaying one or the other of the IDN TLD category, aren't we really giving an unfair competitive advantage to the non-IDN TLDs? And please be aware that I don't want to raise any polemic here, this is a genuine question. I am also a fan of "get a standard first", as you propose in the last paragraph of your message (below), but I am seriously concerned about the consequences of further delay. Cheers, Roberto
"The IANA is not in the business of deciding what is and what is not a country's set of territorial scripts" -- this truly should be a matter for a standards body to determine through its processes. I remain of the view that ICANN, in its role as technical manager of the DNS, should only act when such a list is properly compiled.
Roberto, Speaking as someone that was on the customer service side with a registrar during the introduction of the VeriSign multilingual testbed, I can attest to the problems associated with "rushing forward" to accomodate demand before systems and policy are fully ready -- so I am more concerned about the consequences of rushing forward too quickly than I am about the consequences of necessary delay. Allow me to direct your attention to the Minutes of the Meeting of the board's Executive Committee (30 January 2001) to better illustrate this point: "Although over 800,000 names have been registered in VeriSign's testbed, there has been significant opposition to the manner in which the testbed was deployed. The IETF, in general, has criticized VeriSign for deploying the testbed before the IETF completed a Proposed Standard. Various Asian governments have complained that the introduction was done without the appropriate sensitivity to cultural values. Companies have complained that the introduction was done in a way that facilitated cybersquatting of their names." "One problem that has arisen is the practice of some registrants to register multilingual names outside of the testbed. This has resulted in those registrants being able to register IDNs ahead of the announced schedule, resulting in those who relied on the schedule being blocked from registering those names and prompting significant complaints of unfairness. In addition to this "gold rush" phenomenon, some have complained that this practice has been used for multilingual cybersquatting. These effects have impaired the smooth deployment of VeriSign's multilingual testbed, and threaten in the longer term to disrupt development and deployment of IDN programs generally." Yes, there can be consequences associated with further delay, but by the same token ICANN as technical manager of the DNS has a duty to "get it right". In my view that means waiting for the Standard. regards, Danny --- Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote:
Danny Younger wrote:
In the IDN world, do we really want to see an advantage given to either IDN gTLDs or to the IDN ccTLDs by having one of these groups launched before the other?
Maybe. But on the other hand, playing the devil's advocate here, by artificially delaying one or the other of the IDN TLD category, aren't we really giving an unfair competitive advantage to the non-IDN TLDs?
And please be aware that I don't want to raise any polemic here, this is a genuine question. I am also a fan of "get a standard first", as you propose in the last paragraph of your message (below), but I am seriously concerned about the consequences of further delay.
Cheers, Roberto
"The IANA is not in the business of deciding what
is and what
is not a country's set of territorial scripts" -- this truly should be a matter for a standards body to determine through its processes. I remain of the view that ICANN, in its role as technical manager of the DNS, should only act when such a list is properly compiled.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase. http://farechase.yahoo.com/
It is exactly because of ICANN's delay (2000-2007) on implementation of IDNs that results in a couple of ad hoc alternatives. Despite their names labelled as "testbeds", many of them did charge for registration and made quite a fortune out of the market. As Danny cited from the research results, they were released to the market without proper technical rules, implementation rules and policy rules. As a result, security loopholes (phishing), cybersquatting and others pledging the users. If ICANN had implemented the IDNs under its authoritative ouspieces, these alternatives would not have emerged in the first place. Given that ICANN is seemingly moving forward technically (with the coordination of IETF) and normatively, the users of IDNs, of course, want ICANN to "get it done" asap as well as "get it right". To show you how frustrated of long-awaiting non-English (non-ASCII) users are, I'm writing the following part in my native scripts. 我们需要一点摸着石头过河的精神去实施IDNs。以谨慎为名、止步不前的人，人要么不需要IDNs，要么想独享信息社会的好处。请第一种人设身处地、请第二种人敞开心扉。让我们一起拥抱超越数字鸿沟的美好未来。 薛虹 Verisign's and a couple of other testbeds on IDNs are the On 10/12/07, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> wrote:
Roberto,
Speaking as someone that was on the customer service side with a registrar during the introduction of the VeriSign multilingual testbed, I can attest to the problems associated with "rushing forward" to accomodate demand before systems and policy are fully ready -- so I am more concerned about the consequences of rushing forward too quickly than I am about the consequences of necessary delay.
Allow me to direct your attention to the Minutes of the Meeting of the board's Executive Committee (30 January 2001) to better illustrate this point:
"Although over 800,000 names have been registered in VeriSign's testbed, there has been significant opposition to the manner in which the testbed was deployed. The IETF, in general, has criticized VeriSign for deploying the testbed before the IETF completed a Proposed Standard. Various Asian governments have complained that the introduction was done without the appropriate sensitivity to cultural values. Companies have complained that the introduction was done in a way that facilitated cybersquatting of their names."
"One problem that has arisen is the practice of some registrants to register multilingual names outside of the testbed. This has resulted in those registrants being able to register IDNs ahead of the announced schedule, resulting in those who relied on the schedule being blocked from registering those names and prompting significant complaints of unfairness. In addition to this "gold rush" phenomenon, some have complained that this practice has been used for multilingual cybersquatting. These effects have impaired the smooth deployment of VeriSign's multilingual testbed, and threaten in the longer term to disrupt development and deployment of IDN programs generally."
Yes, there can be consequences associated with further delay, but by the same token ICANN as technical manager of the DNS has a duty to "get it right". In my view that means waiting for the Standard.
regards, Danny
--- Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote:
Danny Younger wrote:
In the IDN world, do we really want to see an advantage given to either IDN gTLDs or to the IDN ccTLDs by having one of these groups launched before the other?
Maybe. But on the other hand, playing the devil's advocate here, by artificially delaying one or the other of the IDN TLD category, aren't we really giving an unfair competitive advantage to the non-IDN TLDs?
And please be aware that I don't want to raise any polemic here, this is a genuine question. I am also a fan of "get a standard first", as you propose in the last paragraph of your message (below), but I am seriously concerned about the consequences of further delay.
Cheers, Roberto
"The IANA is not in the business of deciding what
is and what
is not a country's set of territorial scripts" -- this truly should be a matter for a standards body to determine through its processes. I remain of the view that ICANN, in its role as technical manager of the DNS, should only act when such a list is properly compiled.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase. http://farechase.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
I think Siavash has already argumented well, but let me add that I do not believe that ISO, or whoever else, will *ever* come up with an authoritative list of IDN Country Codes, for the simple reason that there is no businedd case for it. In simple words, to develop a standard costs money, and if there is no interest it is simply not going to be done. So, to wait for a globally recognized standard means to wait forever. If, on the other hand, we are talking about technical standards, Danny is completely right, but I believe that we do have them already. Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: 12 October 2007 16:51 To: Roberto Gaetano; shahshah@irnic.ir Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: RE: [At-Large] ALAC Statement for the ICANN Board Request forResponses
Roberto,
Speaking as someone that was on the customer service side with a registrar during the introduction of the VeriSign multilingual testbed, I can attest to the problems associated with "rushing forward" to accomodate demand before systems and policy are fully ready -- so I am more concerned about the consequences of rushing forward too quickly than I am about the consequences of necessary delay.
Allow me to direct your attention to the Minutes of the Meeting of the board's Executive Committee (30 January 2001) to better illustrate this point:
"Although over 800,000 names have been registered in VeriSign's testbed, there has been significant opposition to the manner in which the testbed was deployed. The IETF, in general, has criticized VeriSign for deploying the testbed before the IETF completed a Proposed Standard. Various Asian governments have complained that the introduction was done without the appropriate sensitivity to cultural values. Companies have complained that the introduction was done in a way that facilitated cybersquatting of their names."
"One problem that has arisen is the practice of some registrants to register multilingual names outside of the testbed. This has resulted in those registrants being able to register IDNs ahead of the announced schedule, resulting in those who relied on the schedule being blocked from registering those names and prompting significant complaints of unfairness. In addition to this "gold rush" phenomenon, some have complained that this practice has been used for multilingual cybersquatting. These effects have impaired the smooth deployment of VeriSign's multilingual testbed, and threaten in the longer term to disrupt development and deployment of IDN programs generally."
Yes, there can be consequences associated with further delay, but by the same token ICANN as technical manager of the DNS has a duty to "get it right". In my view that means waiting for the Standard.
regards, Danny
--- Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote:
Danny Younger wrote:
In the IDN world, do we really want to see an advantage given to either IDN gTLDs or to the IDN ccTLDs by having one of these groups launched before the other?
Maybe. But on the other hand, playing the devil's advocate here, by artificially delaying one or the other of the IDN TLD category, aren't we really giving an unfair competitive advantage to the non-IDN TLDs?
And please be aware that I don't want to raise any polemic here, this is a genuine question. I am also a fan of "get a standard first", as you propose in the last paragraph of your message (below), but I am seriously concerned about the consequences of further delay.
Cheers, Roberto
"The IANA is not in the business of deciding what
is and what
is not a country's set of territorial scripts" -- this truly should be a matter for a standards body to determine through its processes. I remain of the view that ICANN, in its role as technical manager of the DNS, should only act when such a list is properly compiled.
______________________________________________________________ ______________________ Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase. http://farechase.yahoo.com/
Lat week Ram Mohan stated: The unanswered larger issue is the inability of current mail systems to handle local scripts to the left of the "@" symbol. Much work is going on in the IETF to build a protocol that aids this. So - at this time, you can't really do <localscript>@<localscript>.IDN and expect it to work seamlessly all over the web. This statement makes it clear to me that not all necessary technical elements are in place yet (unless you're prepared to accept an IDN domain without fully functional email communication -- and that doesn't strike me as being in the users' best overall interest). Neither do I see the present WHOIS system as capable of rendering registrant contact details in a native script. I also recognize that one of ICANN's Core Values is: "To the extent feasible and appropriate, delegating coordination functions to or recognizing the policy role of other responsible entities that reflect the interests of affected parties". In this matter I view ISO as having a coordinative function; it will be up to the board to decide whether it is feasible and appropriate for ISO to engage in the IDN work. Roberto apparently doesn't view it as feasible. OK. That's his view. But we should hear from the full board on this score and likely we should request a consultation with the ISO. --- Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote:
I think Siavash has already argumented well, but let me add that I do not believe that ISO, or whoever else, will *ever* come up with an authoritative list of IDN Country Codes, for the simple reason that there is no businedd case for it. In simple words, to develop a standard costs money, and if there is no interest it is simply not going to be done. So, to wait for a globally recognized standard means to wait forever.
If, on the other hand, we are talking about technical standards, Danny is completely right, but I believe that we do have them already.
Cheers, Roberto
____________________________________________________________________________________ Catch up on fall's hot new shows on Yahoo! TV. Watch previews, get listings, and more! http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/3658
participants (5)
-
Danny Younger -
Hong Xue -
Roberto Gaetano -
Siavash Shahshahani -
Vittorio Bertola