Satish, Thank you for the very thoughtful comment! Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua

On Aug 10, 2018, at 1:24 AM, Satish Babu <sbabu@ieee.org> wrote:

I am completely in agreement with Greg's point on the need for a conservative approach towards reserving country names. I also agree in principle about incorporating "...the principal languages and six UN languages, where the principal languages are the official or de facto national languages and the statutory or de facto provincial languages of that country."

We need to be aware of some edge cases that may not completely fit the above formulation, India being a case in point. India does not have a de-jure "national" language, but it has 22 "official languages", of which Hindi & English have co-equal status over the 36 administrative territories (States + Union Territories). There are about 15 scripts for the official languages that are largely unintelligible mutually.

However, India is not unique. Going by the Linguistic Diversity Index (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_diversity_index), India is not even amongst the top 5 countries in terms of language diversity. Given this fact, and also that from an aspirational perspective, linguistic communities may call for some level of protection of names, our challenge would be to ensure that the above formulation can be made flexible enough to cover these cases.

Finally, regarding the question of authoritative sources for language information, I wonder if national sources (such as the Official Languages Act of 1963 for India) may be more relevant than UN sources.

With kind regards,

satish

...

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 10:12 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: Reserving country names in "any language" is ridiculously overbroad and serves no useful purpose. It contradicts an overarching policy concept -- that reserving strings should be done conservatively and must be based on an underlying policy justification. In honor of GDPR, let's call this "reservation minimization". In both the One and Two Letter Reserved Names Working Group (my first WG, back in 2007) and the IGO-INGO Preventative Rights WG, this principle was clearly understood and careful deliberations took place over relatively small variations in the number of reserved names. In the IGO-INGO group, it was very important to generate a finite list

The "any language" reservation turns this on its head. For "long form country names" alone, this results in the reservation of approximately 1,752,959 reserved names (assuming 247 countries & territories and 7097 languages). Add the "short form country name" and we're up to approximately 3,505,918 reserved names. In reality, we have no real what these reserved names actually are. They are "reserved" in some conceptual way, I guess. Do we know how to say "Anguilla" in Lungalunga? Is there even a way to refer to Anguilla in Lungalunga? Maybe it's just Anguilla, but that cannot be assumed. This is an absurd result that does not withstand scrutiny.

A much narrower approach needs to be taken. We need to be practical but we need to have strong underlying principles. For instance, "official languages" is too narrow, because many countries don't have official languages. The Ethnologue website has useful categories that can be employed to expand this in a principal manner. For instance, one category is "de facto national language," described as "the language in which the business of the national government is conducted but this is not mandated by law. It is also the language of national identity for the citizens of the country." This deals with the United States and similar countries. See Table 3 at https://www.ethnologue.com/about/language-status.

The term "relevant languages" has no meaning and no boundaries. It's a bad idea for us to invent categories. It will continue to result in absurdly long, overbroad and unlistable lists of country name translations. Since we are dealing with something as absolute as reservations, we need to be clear about what we are reserving and why.

As Marita's email indicates, we still have work to do to find a source that goes far enough without going too far. The Ethnologue website also has a useful concept -- the "principal language(s)" of a country. This may not work exactly, but conceptually it's far closer to where we need to be.

To sum up, I'd look toward a formulation like the principal languages and six UN languages, where the principal languages are the official or de facto national languages and the statutory or de facto provincial languages of that country.

Best regards,

Greg

...

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 11:11 AM Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote: Thanks, Marita.

Javier Rúa-Jovet

+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua

...

On Aug 9, 2018, at 10:50 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:

Working Paper 54 [unstats.un.org] is a fascinating resource. It does not appear difficult to identify the national official languages of countries. But it has problems. I looked at India which lists English and Hindi as official languages. But they don't list the 12 official regional languages like Urdu, Bengali, Punjabi -- many thousands of people speak these languages and I don't see how we could disenfranchise them. So I am going to go for "official and commonly spoken languages" or "official and relevant languages." I could also go for "any language" but that's a big door to open. Marita

...

On 8/9/2018 4:35 PM, Emily Barabas wrote: Hi Jorge,

Thanks for laying out these options in a clear format. Perhaps it indeed does make sense to take a step back and focus not on the text suggested earlier in the week, but on the alternatives raised:

(1) maintain “all languages”

(2) official languages and official UN languages

(3) some intermediate solution covering all languages commonly used in a given country to identify its name… (there could be several options: “common languages”; “commonly used languages”; “relevant national, regional and community languages”, etc.)

All are encouraged to provide feedback.

Kind regards,

Emily

From: "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Date: Thursday, 9 August 2018 at 16:30 To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] AW: Additional Input Requested - "in any language"

Dear Emily

As a threshold consideration: as there is no clear “room consensus” on this question I feel that there should be no preference given to any of the, as I see, three main options at hand: (1) maintain “all languages”; (2) official languages and official UN languages; (3) some intermediate solution covering all languages commonly used in a given country to identify its name… (there could be several options: “common languages”; “commonly used languages”; “relevant national, regional and community languages”, etc.)

Therefore either we have the AGB (amended) language for the three main options or we have it for none. We cannot just have the amended language as “suggested recommendation” reflecting only option (2) above.

Thanks for considering and best regards

Jorge

Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> Im Auftrag von Emily Barabas Gesendet: Donnerstag, 9. August 2018 15:44 An: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Additional Input Requested - "in any language"

Dear all,

On our call yesterday there was some robust discussion about draft recommendations 3, 4, and 6, which suggest changing “in any language” to “official languages of the country and the official UN languages” for several AGB categories. Please reply to this thread to provide additional input on the suggested edits or alternate options listed at the bottom of this message. For reference, here is an excerpt of AGB text with redline reflecting suggested recommendations:

2.2.1.4.1 Treatment of Country or Territory Names

Applications for strings that are country or territory names will not be approved, as they are not available under the New gTLD Program in this application round. A string shall be considered to be a country or territory name if:

it is a long-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard, or a translation of the long-form name in any language official languages of the country and the official UN languages. it is a short-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard, or a translation of the short-form name in any language official languages of the country and the official UN languages. it is a separable component of a country name designated on the “Separable Country Names List,” or is a translation of a name appearing on the list, in any language official languages of the country and the official UN languages. See the Annex at the end of this module. Below you will find an excerpt from the Working Document (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BRzHr2FxSTYHX1I8F3FHSt6Bo1cvJsKyWX8WZXRU... [docs.google.com]) highlighting some of the ideas and arguments shared on the mailing list and on calls:

Some Work Track members stated that the text “in any language” results in a very large number of reserved strings and does not provide a clear and objective list that can be used as reference. From this perspective, the provision is not predictable or transparent. One Work Track member also noted that some languages are spoken by very few people, therefore reserving representations in all languages may not be appropriate. From another perspective, “in any language” should remain in place unless there is a factual basis for limiting the languages covered in this provision. Many languages may be spoken by and relevant to communities within a given country, and the list should therefore not be limited. Work Track members suggested the following possible options as alternatives to “in any language”:

Limit the list to the official UN languages. One Work Track member stated that if the UN languages are included, the text should state “including but not limited to official UN languages.” Another WT member stated that there are no “official UN languages.” There are “UN working languages.” One Work Track member suggested that Portuguese should be added to this list as it is an ICANN language. Limit the list to Create a list of languages using the official languages of each country and official UN languages. Some Work Track members stated that it might be difficult to identify the official languages of each country. One WT member asked in the WT would take on the task of creating such a list. One Work Track member suggested using as a starting point Working Paper 54 [unstats.un.org] of the UN Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN). Another WT member stated that there are no “official UN languages.” There are “UN working languages.” From one perspective, the list should not be limited in this way. Official UN languages are largely irrelevant in many countries. Also from this perspective, the concept of official languages only appears in certain countries. In this view, the administrations in many countries use languages that are not official. People of the country also use languages that may not be official, and these languages are important to specific communities. Alternate to “official languages” suggested: “official and relevant languages.” Example used in relation to “relevant languages”: “We have more than 25% of foreign-born people living in Switzerland. They refer to Switzerland in their languages and scripts. These are relevant languages/scripts that should be covered.” Alternate to “official languages” suggested: “official and commonly spoken languages.” One Work Track member suggested that Portuguese should be added to this list as it is an ICANN language. Develop a list using the Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale and categorization based on Official Recognition [ethnologue.com]. Create an exhaustive repository of all country names in all languages. Change “in any language” to “in any script.” Kind regards,

Emily

_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

---

Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5