(The following was also posted on RySG list earlier) As most of you know that this issue has been addressed in the 2004 .asia sTLD application http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/stld-apps-19mar04/asia.htm . DotAsia will be happy to support this -- some may recalled that the similar concept of *IDN gTLD fast track* to support existing TLD operators to apply for associated IDN name. There's definitely other policy issues which it can take another year or two to resolve. However, this is a little bothering for some as this statement is from BC rather than from NCSG or ALAC (which could make Adrian feel that this is land grabbing). Also, the CJK language / ccTLD communities did not sign up and this makes the statement less persuasive. Just my two cents. Ching On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 6:18 AM, Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au>wrote:
Have everyone seen this?
http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/andruff-et-al-to-dengate-thrush-becks...
This is, in my opinion, ridiculous.
This is an incredibly slippery slope to even bother with and we have covered this ground before.
This is nothing more than a real estate grab by those that stand to benefit from it (and the usual suspects they have been able to rope in to “support” them).
I thought the GNSO sorted out this issue a long time ago. Did VeriSign just decide how much it was going to cost to go for .com in every script all of a sudden?
It is really simple. You cannot clearly define the meaning of *every* word in English as it directly relates to other scripts.
So, if I went for .auto does that mean I get .auto in Arabic – what is the EXACT translation for that? Do you get everything close? How close does it have to be?
What about the reverse? What if I go for .auto in Arabic (whatever that is) does that mean I get .car, .automobile, .auto, .autobus etc etc in ASCII?
Finally, .music in ASCII) is not the same as .music (Arabic version). It is promoting competition. What amazes me is no one receives any bundled TLD’s when they register under .com right now. VeriSign allows for separate registrations in each script. If they are the same, why don’t they give each registrant every IDN variant?
I would really like to make a stand on this as a Council. This rule has been included in EVERY version of the guidebook. Now we are nearing the finish line these folks would prefer to make a wholesale change to their benefit.
What are the thoughts of the Council?
*Adrian Kinderis*