Re: [At-Large] IDN ccTLD
I need some help understanding where we are going with this proposal. It seems to me that most people on the planet want to communicate in their native language, and logically they would be looking for a language-based TLD -- for example, a Vietnamese language TLD or a Wolof language TLD -- let's call them L-tlds. Why then do we seem to be supporting proposals that seem to automatically confer IDN authority upon the ccTLD managers? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a competitive process wherein those that wish to bid to manage a language based TLD would have the opportunity to make their case to ICANN? Why do we need another set of territorial-based TLDs when language tends to go well beyond specific territories? ____________________________________________________________________________________ Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/
I need some help understanding where we are going with this proposal.
It seems to me that most people on the planet want to communicate in their native language, and logically they would be looking for a language-based TLD -- for example, a Vietnamese language TLD or a Wolof language TLD -- let's call them L-tlds. Why then do we seem to be supporting proposals that seem to automatically confer IDN authority upon the ccTLD managers?
Wouldn't it make more sense to have a competitive process wherein those that wish to bid to manage a language based TLD would have the opportunity to make their case to ICANN?
Why do we need another set of territorial-based TLDs when language tends to go well beyond specific territories?
The short answer to this is the different nature of ICANN's legal relationship to gTLDs and ccTLDs. Your suggestion may make perfect sense for IDN gTLDs, but recall that most ccTLDs do not have a contract with ICANN and many countries will not accept ICANN as the arbiter of who will run their national IDN TLD. Therefore, the least controversial and the quickest way to implement a country-specific IDN was seen to start with the ISO list of territories which already have a working relationship with IANA. Siavash _________________________________________________________________________________
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.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
------------------------------------------------- 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 -----------------------------------------------
Siavash, Thank you for your reply. Allow me to pose the question: If there was one TLD for the arabic language, why would we need to have a host of arabic national IDN TLDs? Who gains from such a scenario other than ccTLD managers and particular governments? Is the public (user) interest best initially served by first rolling out one script per ccTLD, or by rolling out a series of language TLDs with no set territorial linkages (understanding that national IDN TLDs could be rolled out in a subsequent timeframe)? I am concerned that the current approach may see entire language groups ignored while we cater to these two above-named special interest groups. Which ccTLD manager, for example, will necessarily commit to supporting Wolof? Or which ccTLD manager will make it a priority to support the Romani language? ____________________________________________________________________________________Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/
Thank you for your reply. Allow me to pose the question: If there was one TLD for the arabic language, why would we need to have a host of arabic national IDN TLDs? Who gains from such a scenario other than ccTLD managers and particular governments?
I'm not Siavash, but that seems to me approximately the same as asking why we need .US, .UK, .AU, .BZ, and .NZ rather than sharing a .ENGLISH domain. While it is true that the management style of ccTLDs varies a lot, huge numbers of registrants choose to use their ccTLD rather than a gTLD, and I don't see any reason that their preferences would change if they could register in a national language ccTLD. R's, John PS: I express no opinion here on the merits of national language versions of gTLDs, which are an even bigger can of worme.
Siavash,
Thank you for your reply. Allow me to pose the question: If there was one TLD for the arabic language, why would we need to have a host of arabic national IDN TLDs? Who gains from such a scenario other than ccTLD managers and particular governments?
There's an Arabic IDN consortium that should be addressed about this. From what I understand, there may be variations in the language from country to country. Further, there's a question of who the 'delegating authority' may be: Arab League? Arabic IDN Consortium? ICANN? Which company, based in which Arab country(or elsewhere) should run the TLD? Would this be a gTLD subject to ICANN rules? Would that be acceptable to Arab representatives in GAC? Could you get consensus on any of these questions among the GAC representatives of Arab countries? Note also that Arabic may be rather unique in being shared by a fairly large number of countries.
Is the public (user) interest best initially served by first rolling out one script per ccTLD, or by rolling out a series of language TLDs with no set territorial linkages (understanding that national IDN TLDs could be rolled out in a subsequent timeframe)?
If a language is mainly used in one geographic territory(specially if it is designated as official language), there's no reason why ICANN should by-pass that territory and set itself as the authority on what the best interests of that community are. If a language is shared by more than one territory, then there are probably sensitive local variations that can best be addressed in a decentralized way. IANA can help as coordinator for avoiding phishing possibilities, etc. And there's again a question of 'delegating authority'. Would ICANN, a US-based company, like to take on the Iranian government about the delegation of a Persian IDN ? By letting dot.iran be run by the present ccTLD which has working relationships with both ICANN(through IANA) and the Iranian government, such political problems can be avoided.
I am concerned that the current approach may see entire language groups ignored while we cater to these two above-named special interest groups. Which ccTLD manager, for example, will necessarily commit to supporting Wolof? Or which ccTLD manager will make it a priority to support the Romani language?
The idea is, not to come up immediately with a perfect solution for all, but to set this thing rolling. Once it starts we'll have a better idea of what the salient questions are. Siavash ____________________________________________________________________________________Ready
for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/
------------------------------------------------- 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 -----------------------------------------------
Danny Younger ha scritto:
Siavash,
Thank you for your reply. Allow me to pose the question: If there was one TLD for the arabic language, why would we need to have a host of arabic national IDN TLDs? Who gains from such a scenario other than ccTLD managers and particular governments?
Danny, apart from all the good reasons that others already posted, it is now a sort of internationally recognized right of a sovereign country to be associated with a ccTLD, and, by extension, with a ccTLD in each of its own official languages/scripts. This is one of the few principles agreed at the political level in the last years, and while of course it is not written in stone, attempts to deny it would be seen (rightfully, in my opinion) as the US Government stepping in to prevent non-English-speakers from fully enjoying the virtues of the Internet. About this:
I am concerned that the current approach may see entire language groups ignored while we cater to these two above-named special interest groups. Which ccTLD manager, for example, will necessarily commit to supporting Wolof? Or which ccTLD manager will make it a priority to support the Romani language?
let me say that while it might easily be that ccTLD managers do not cater to all the local needs, it seems even more unlikely that minority languages of a given territory could be an interesting market for the set of commercial corporations that currently run most gTLDs. I think that the best option for speakers of minority languages is to form their own non-profit registry and apply themselves, which is why application fees and other requirements have to be kept as low as possible (though existing registr* of course usually push for the opposite). It is unfortunate that ccTLDs are getting to IDNs before the others, but that's because their applications would be much less controversial than any other. Please note, however, that the fact that a country can be "entitled" to an "IDN ccTLD" does not imply that it should necessarily be the current ASCII ccTLD manager to run it, though I think that this would be the natural choice in most countries. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
Vittorio, It is true public comment was basically not considered. No one discussed the comments put forward by Bret Fausett, or by Mike Palage, or by Mike Roddenbaugh or even by Vittorio Bertola, among others. Sure, Chuck Gomes (probably one of the only councilors to actually read the public comments) referred to a couple of points made in the Forum, but basically the Council devoted no dedicated time to a discussion of the public comments (even though such a discussion was an agenda item). The public was ignored again... but surely the ALAC is used to this by now... ____________________________________________________________________________________ Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games. http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow
participants (4)
-
Danny Younger -
John L -
Siavash Shahshahani -
Vittorio Bertola