[bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-idng] motion for IDNG WG formation

Wed Jun 3 16:29:02 UTC 2009

Mike,

I agree with Chuck Gomes' reasoning (not just because VeriSign is one of my
members.)  Here Chuck has taken the same perspective I have argued for:  put
aside any concern for registries and registrars, and just serve the
interests of users and registrants who have been waiting too long for IDNs.

Remember, the demand for IDN TLDs has always been about offering both gTLD
and ccTLDs in IDN scripts.   But the ccNSO split the process when they asked
the Board to let them just skip their PDP and proceed on a fast track.

We now have delays in launching new gTLDs due to concerns of mainly ASCII
registrants, and this is delaying IDN gTLDs as well.  That's why a fast
track for IDN gTLDs is worth considering, if only to return to our original
goal of bringing IDN TLDs (both g and cc) to billions of Internet users.

We have heard businesses at the last 3 ICANN meetings describe their desire
to serve IDN users in multiple countries with a single IDN version of their
current gTLD domain.   They describe why that is much better than having to
register domains (and register to do business) in multiple IDN ccTLDs.
(over 20 ccTLDs are likely to launch Arabic IDN versions)

>From an IDN user's perspective, we can improve their convenience and choice
by allowing them to access their current favorite gTLD content using all IDN
scripts.  Two examples:

Example 1: an Arabic user of ArabLeagueOnline.org wants to reach the same
site by entering the URL in all-Arabic, instead of picking from multiple IDN
ccTLD versions that may have their own rules about content.

Example 2: a Korean user wants to keep using her current contact list of
gTLD-based email addresses, but wants to use  all-Korean scripts.  She
doesn't want to switch her email accounts (and those of all her contacts) to
IDN ccTLDs.

If IDN registrants and users wantsto choose ccTLDs for their IDN content and
communications, that's fine.  But we shouldn't force them to switch from
gTLDs to ccTLDs just because IDN gTLDs are delayed by a much longer
discussion of new ASCII gTLDs.

I'm a big fan of facts and data gathering, but this issue is self-evident
and we ought to support the motion.

True, there are remaining questions about rights protection mechanisms and
application review.  But I think the IDN gTLD fast track as a pilot for the
new process that will eventually be used for all new gTLDs.

-- 
Steve DelBianco
Executive Director
NetChoice
http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org
+1.202.420.7482 

On 6/3/09 10:06 AM, "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann at rodenbaugh.com> wrote:

> 
> FYI the below string which clearly explains the motivation behind the 'fast
> track' IDN gTLD process that is proposed by the Registry Constituency, and
> sets forth a motion that Council will vote upon in Sydney.
> 
> Personally, I think this is a good idea, and Chuck Gomes explains precisely
> why in his message below.  We should take appropriate steps to try to ensure
> that ccTLDs do not have undue advantage over gTLDs, particularly in the new
> world of IDN TLDs.
> 
> Please reply with comments, concerns, questions -- as the Councilors need to
> determine how to vote on this motion.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mike
> 
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> Rodenbaugh Law
> 548 Market Street
> San Francisco, CA  94104
> +1.415.738.8087
> www.rodenbaugh.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-idng at icann.org] On Behalf
> Of Adrian Kinderis
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 5:40 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Edmon Chung; gnso-idng at icann.org
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] motion for IDNG WG formation
> 
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to clarify Chuck.
> 
> I'll give it due consideration (i.e. sleep on it) and get back to you.
> 
> I think it is a slippery slope if you start this, however, in the scenario
> you suggest it could indeed be workable.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Adrian Kinderis
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 3 June 2009 10:32 PM
> To: Adrian Kinderis; Edmon Chung; gnso-idng at icann.org
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] motion for IDNG WG formation
> 
> It's really not very complicated Adrian.
> 
> 1. The ideal approach for IDN TLDs is for both IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs to
> be launched at the same general time frame.  Two reasons for this
> are: 1) To avoid giving either IDN ccTLDs or IDN gTLDs a competitive
> advantage over the other for a service that has had pent-up demand for
> years; 2) to give businesses and organizations that provide services and/or
> products in multiple countries to have a choice between registering their
> names in either an IDN gTLD or in multiple IDN ccTLDs or both.  Regarding
> the latter, the Arab region is a good example; if I operate a business in
> multiple Arab countries, I may prefer to register my name in the Arabic
> script in one IDN gTLD rather than in multiple IDN ccTLDs; on the other
> hand, if I only operate my business in one Arab country, I might prefer to
> register it in the IDN ccTLD for that country.
> 
> 2. It now appears that IDN ccTLDs could be introduced significantly sooner
> than new gTLDs, so there could be a gap of 6 to 9 months between when IDN
> ccTLDs are implemented and when IDN gTLDs are implemented, assuming that IDN
> gTLDs are introduced as part of the overall new gTLD process as originally
> planned.
> 
> 3. In case #2 happens, we could close the gap by having an IDN gTLD fast
> tract process.
> 
> You are of course correct that the overarching issues and other unresolved
> new gTLD implementation issues apply to IDN gTLDs as well as to ASCII gTLDs.
> That is why any IDN gTLD fast track approach would have to address those
> issues.  There are probably multiple ways that could be handled; let me
> describe one possible scenario:  1) Let's assume that IDN ccTLDs are
> introduced by 1 January 2010; 2) let's also assume that the final DAG is
> approved in December 2009 as currently projected and that the minimum
> 4-month communication period starts then ; 3) an IDN gTLD fast track process
> could be implemented on 1 January 2010 just like the IDN ccTLD fast track
> process at the beginning of the communication period.  In this scenario, the
> final DAG would apply to any IDN gTLDs that are approved.  There of course
> could be different scenarios that would require other approaches but it does
> not seem unreasonable to think that processes could be developed to deal
> with them.
> 
> One question for you: Why should IDN ccTLDs get a first to market advantage
> over IDN gTLDs?
> 
> Regarding your last question, why should IDN gTLDs have a first to market
> advantage over ASCII gTLDs, I would say that it is much less of a market
> advantage when comparing IDN TLDs to ASCII TLDs than it is comparing IDN
> gTLDs to IDN ccTLDs.
> 
> Chuck
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-idng at icann.org
>> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng at icann.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 5:18 AM
>> To: Edmon Chung; gnso-idng at icann.org
>> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] motion for IDNG WG formation
>> 
>> 
>> I'm sorry. I still don't get it.
>> 
>> I'm sorry I haven't been available for phone calls particularly those
>> that fall on or after midnight (as every one has lately, my bad).
>> 
>> Can someone please explain to me, in simple terms, why this needs to
>> proposed?
>> 
>> I understand completely that IDN ccTLD's should not delay the launch
>> of IDN new gTLD's however this seems somewhat superfluous to this
>> issue. If the ccNSO et al take too long sorting out their fast track
>> process so be it. Their loss. Go forth gTLD (IDN or otherwise)
>> 
>> Why should IDN new gTLD's be launched *prior* to ascii gTLD's as is
>> being suggested? Why don't the exact issues that are retarding the
>> release of ascii gTLD's (the four overarching issues plus others)
>> apply to IDN gTLD's? Are IDN's not subject to trademarks like ascii
>> gTLD's or will they not be subject to second level issues (as proposed
>> by the GAC)? Will registrants like McDonald's still have to register
>> in every script to protect their brand and ignore any clearing house
>> suggestion as proposed in the IRT Report?
>> 
>> What am I missing here?
>> 
>> I merely don't understand the point of why IDN gTLD's should get
>> special treatment when they aren't special at all. Why should IDN
>> gTLD's have any first to market advantage over ascii gTLD's?
>> 
>> Apologies if I am covering ground that is well travelled but I am at a
>> loss with the logic.
>> 
>> As it stands I will be suggested to my Constituency to vote against
>> any such motion.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>>   
>> 
>> Adrian Kinderis
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-idng at icann.org
>> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng at icann.org] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung
>> Sent: Wednesday, 3 June 2009 6:29 PM
>> To: gnso-idng at icann.org
>> Subject: [gnso-idng] motion for IDNG WG formation
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Everyone,
>> 
>> Below is a first stab at a possible motion to go with the IDNG
>> charter.  Please take a look and make suggestions.
>> 
>> Edmon
>> 
>> 
>> ========================================
>> 
>> WHEREAS:
>> 
>> The ICANN community has been discussing issues related to IDN and IDN
>> TLDs since 2000, and the ICANN board as early as September 2000
>> recognized "that it is important that the Internet evolve to be more
>> accessible to those who do not use the ASCII character set";
>> 
>> There is expressed demand from the community, especially from language
>> communities around the world who do not use English or a Latin based
>> script as a primary language, including the CJK (Chinese Japanese
>> Korean) communities and the right-to-left directional script
>> communities (e.g. Arabic, Hebrew, Persian, etc.), for advancing the
>> introduction of Internationalized Top-Level Domains (IDN TLDs);
>> 
>> GNSO IDN WG successfully completed its outcomes report in March 2007
>> and the GNSO Council approved the incorporation of its findings in the
>> GNSO Final Report on the Introduction of New gTLDs in September 2007,
>> describing policy requirements for the introduction of IDN gTLDs;
>> 
>> The community observes the successful development of the IDN ccTLD
>> Fast Track based on the IDNC WG recommendations, and the ongoing
>> progress for the Implementation of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process;
>> 
>> The implementation of the New gTLD process is ongoing and the schedule
>> and development of the implementation should continue;
>> 
>> GNSO Council had made comments in response to the ccNSO-GAC Issues
>> Report on IDN Issues, as well as in its comments on the IDNC WG Final
>> Report expressed that "the introduction of IDN gTLDs or IDN ccTLDs
>> should not be delayed because of lack of readiness of one category,
>> but if they are not introduced at the same time, steps should be taken
>> so that neither category is advantaged or disadvantaged, and
>> procedures should be developed to avoid possible conflicts";
>> 
>> GNSO Council made a resolution in January 2009 to assert that "the
>> GNSO Council strongly believes that neither the New gTLD or ccTLD fast
>> track process should result in IDN TLDs in the root before the other
>> unless both the GNSO and ccNSO so agree";
>> 
>> An IDN gTLD Fast Track, if successfully implemented, could be
>> introduced in close proximity with the IDN ccTLD Fast Track in the
>> case that the New gTLD process is further delayed, and could address
>> the concerns expressed by the GNSO Council regarding possible
>> conflicts if IDN gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs are not introduced at the same
>> time.
>> 
>> 
>> RESOLVED:
>> 
>> To recommend to the ICANN Board that an IDNG WG (Internationalized
>> Generic Top-Level Domain Working Group) be formed under the Proposed
>> Charter for the IDNG Working Group (IDNG WG).
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 