order of variant activation / "primary" label
Dear colleagues, at the end of yesterday's call, we had a short discussion about the order of variant activation, which we did not have enough time to conclude. I would like to quickly summarise the argument, which I wanted to make. I think we should continue the discussion in one of the next calls, whenever it fits best. Due to the fact that variant dispositions are different, depending on which label you start with, it makes a big difference, which label you register first (if you don't want to register all at the same time). Take the real life example of the Turkish brand "*Yapı Kredi*". They are currently using the domain yapikredi.com.tr. Let's say, they would like to apply for their own TLD. For internationalisation reasons, they would like to start with ASCII version .yapikredi as a TLD string. Several years later, they would like to also register their variant TLD with the correct spelling: .yapıkredi. That's not possible, because it's a blocked variant. As a consequence, they will have to start with registering the TLD .yapıkredi, even if they do not want to use it directly, just to make sure, they don't lock themselves out of using it at all. The question is, how should such a use case be accommodated best? I see two possibilities: 1. Apply for both TLDs at the same time .yapıkredi and .yapikredi, but only activate the second one, keeping the first one inactive for years. 2. Apply for .yapikredi, but state in the application that the "main" TLD should be .yapıkredi, even though it's not applied for yet. The first approach is the simpler one, but it might incur unnecessary cost as the applicant is not sure, whether they ever want to activate the second label. The second approach would require that each application needs to define a "primary" or "main" or "starting" label, however we want to call it. I personally would support Option 2 as that would also avoid some potential inconsistencies, when a variant TLD gets retired. Similar examples also exist for other scripts, not just Latin. Best regards, Michael
I agree with Michael. We need to have further discussions. Anil Sent from my iPhone
On 18-Sep-2022, at 11:29 AM, Michael.Bauland@knipp.de wrote:
Dear colleagues,
at the end of yesterday's call, we had a short discussion about the order of variant activation, which we did not have enough time to conclude. I would like to quickly summarise the argument, which I wanted to make. I think we should continue the discussion in one of the next calls, whenever it fits best.
Due to the fact that variant dispositions are different, depending on which label you start with, it makes a big difference, which label you register first (if you don't want to register all at the same time).
Take the real life example of the Turkish brand "*Yapı Kredi*". They are currently using the domain yapikredi.com.tr. Let's say, they would like to apply for their own TLD. For internationalisation reasons, they would like to start with ASCII version .yapikredi as a TLD string. Several years later, they would like to also register their variant TLD with the correct spelling: .yapıkredi. That's not possible, because it's a blocked variant.
As a consequence, they will have to start with registering the TLD .yapıkredi, even if they do not want to use it directly, just to make sure, they don't lock themselves out of using it at all.
The question is, how should such a use case be accommodated best? I see two possibilities: 1. Apply for both TLDs at the same time .yapıkredi and .yapikredi, but only activate the second one, keeping the first one inactive for years. 2. Apply for .yapikredi, but state in the application that the "main" TLD should be .yapıkredi, even though it's not applied for yet.
The first approach is the simpler one, but it might incur unnecessary cost as the applicant is not sure, whether they ever want to activate the second label. The second approach would require that each application needs to define a "primary" or "main" or "starting" label, however we want to call it. I personally would support Option 2 as that would also avoid some potential inconsistencies, when a variant TLD gets retired.
Similar examples also exist for other scripts, not just Latin.
Best regards,
Michael _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-idn-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-idn-team
Thanks for the follow up email Michael. While I think I understand Hadia's question, I also think what she was suggesting is very unlikely to occur, ie that an applicant would apply for a primary/source label and allocatable variants and then decides to activate the variant label/s before the source label. My assumption has always been that an applicant would either activate the source/primary + allocatable variants at the same time or activate the source/primary label first followed at some later time by the allocatable variants. Interested to hear the view of others on this, but I agree with you Michael that we do need to make time to conclude the discussion. Donna -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Michael Bauland Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2022 11:29 AM To: gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] order of variant activation / "primary" label Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Forward suspicious emails to isitbad@. Dear colleagues, at the end of yesterday's call, we had a short discussion about the order of variant activation, which we did not have enough time to conclude. I would like to quickly summarise the argument, which I wanted to make. I think we should continue the discussion in one of the next calls, whenever it fits best. Due to the fact that variant dispositions are different, depending on which label you start with, it makes a big difference, which label you register first (if you don't want to register all at the same time). Take the real life example of the Turkish brand "*Yapı Kredi*". They are currently using the domain yapikredi.com.tr. Let's say, they would like to apply for their own TLD. For internationalisation reasons, they would like to start with ASCII version .yapikredi as a TLD string. Several years later, they would like to also register their variant TLD with the correct spelling: .yapıkredi. That's not possible, because it's a blocked variant. As a consequence, they will have to start with registering the TLD .yapıkredi, even if they do not want to use it directly, just to make sure, they don't lock themselves out of using it at all. The question is, how should such a use case be accommodated best? I see two possibilities: 1. Apply for both TLDs at the same time .yapıkredi and .yapikredi, but only activate the second one, keeping the first one inactive for years. 2. Apply for .yapikredi, but state in the application that the "main" TLD should be .yapıkredi, even though it's not applied for yet. The first approach is the simpler one, but it might incur unnecessary cost as the applicant is not sure, whether they ever want to activate the second label. The second approach would require that each application needs to define a "primary" or "main" or "starting" label, however we want to call it. I personally would support Option 2 as that would also avoid some potential inconsistencies, when a variant TLD gets retired. Similar examples also exist for other scripts, not just Latin. Best regards, Michael _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-idn-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...
Thanks Donna. My understanding is consistent with what you've said. There is likely to be some reason--market-related or language-related--why the applicant would designate a particular label as the primary/source label, and others as variants. Once thus designated, I would consider that the applicant would be highly likely to activate the primary label first. With kind regards satish On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 10:55 AM Donna@registry.godaddy <Donna@registry.godaddy> wrote:
Thanks for the follow up email Michael.
While I think I understand Hadia's question, I also think what she was suggesting is very unlikely to occur, ie that an applicant would apply for a primary/source label and allocatable variants and then decides to activate the variant label/s before the source label. My assumption has always been that an applicant would either activate the source/primary + allocatable variants at the same time or activate the source/primary label first followed at some later time by the allocatable variants.
Interested to hear the view of others on this, but I agree with you Michael that we do need to make time to conclude the discussion.
Donna
-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Michael Bauland Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2022 11:29 AM To: gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] order of variant activation / "primary" label
Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Forward suspicious emails to isitbad@.
Dear colleagues,
at the end of yesterday's call, we had a short discussion about the order of variant activation, which we did not have enough time to conclude. I would like to quickly summarise the argument, which I wanted to make. I think we should continue the discussion in one of the next calls, whenever it fits best.
Due to the fact that variant dispositions are different, depending on which label you start with, it makes a big difference, which label you register first (if you don't want to register all at the same time).
Take the real life example of the Turkish brand "*Yapı Kredi*". They are currently using the domain yapikredi.com.tr. Let's say, they would like to apply for their own TLD. For internationalisation reasons, they would like to start with ASCII version .yapikredi as a TLD string. Several years later, they would like to also register their variant TLD with the correct spelling: .yapıkredi. That's not possible, because it's a blocked variant.
As a consequence, they will have to start with registering the TLD .yapıkredi, even if they do not want to use it directly, just to make sure, they don't lock themselves out of using it at all.
The question is, how should such a use case be accommodated best? I see two possibilities: 1. Apply for both TLDs at the same time .yapıkredi and .yapikredi, but only activate the second one, keeping the first one inactive for years. 2. Apply for .yapikredi, but state in the application that the "main" TLD should be .yapıkredi, even though it's not applied for yet.
The first approach is the simpler one, but it might incur unnecessary cost as the applicant is not sure, whether they ever want to activate the second label. The second approach would require that each application needs to define a "primary" or "main" or "starting" label, however we want to call it. I personally would support Option 2 as that would also avoid some potential inconsistencies, when a variant TLD gets retired.
Similar examples also exist for other scripts, not just Latin.
Best regards,
Michael _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-idn-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o... _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-idn-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-idn-team
participants (4)
-
Ceo-Nixi -
Donna＠registry.godaddy -
Michael Bauland -
Satish Babu