[council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report

[Robin Gross]

The same issue was raised at my table by the board members.  The  
feeling was "if two countries are going to start a war over a domain  
name, that is their problem.  They must pick 1 name."  I think there  
is merit to this view.    It was also mentioned that Chinese is a  
script that is used by a large community in just about EVERY country  
in the world, so does this mean every country gets a script in  
Chinese?    In the US alone, there are large language communities for  
probably 10 scripts, giving the US 10 scripts under our rule.   I do  
not believe this is what we intended.

And a few other points were raised that need to be dealt with.  In  
particular, the recommendation that "strings must not be confusingly  
similar" is misplaced.  Only technical confusion is the type that  
should be dealt with here, not general confusion.  I agree.  This  
recommendation really does not make sense from a trademark viewpoint  
(although that is how it is intended), since a domain name, by  
itself, does not cause confusion, but only with relation to how the  
domain is used.    We are going well beyond technical stability and  
trying to regulate other things that are outside ICANN's authority.

Perhaps we should give more thought to our recommendations before we  
vote on them.    I found the feedback from the board to be enormously  
useful and we should try to address their concerns before voting.

Thanks,
Robin



On Feb 10, 2008, at 7:39 PM, Norbert Klein wrote:

> I also agree with Avri's suggestion, where others already consented.
>
> At the table I was - and I later talking to people from another  
> table - there
> was opposition to the "One IDNccTLD per one script per one language
> group": "their government should decide to choose just one."
>
> I was surprised about the lack of sensitivity on the political/ 
> social/cultural
> implications. I argued - as a example - saying that it would be highly
> destructive in the presently tense situation, if the Malaysian  
> government
> would give preference to the Chinese over against the Indian ethnic  
> sections
> of the society by allocating only one IDNccTLD, but this was dismissed
> as "not ICANN's problem."
>
> Norbert
>
> -
>
> ----------  Forwarded Message  ----------
>
> Subject: RE: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report
> Date: Monday, 11 February 2008
> From: "Edmon Chung" <edmon at dotasia.org>
> To: "'Council GNSO'" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>
>
> Agreed.
> Edmon
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- 
>> council at gnso.icann.org] On
>> Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis
>> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 10:11 AM
>> To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO
>> Subject: RE: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report
>>
>>
>> The same issue was raised at our table Avri.
>>
>> I believe your suggested change would be appropriate.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Adrian Kinderis
>
> -- 
> If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia,
> please visit us regularly - you can find something new every day:
>
> http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com
>
> Agreed.
> Edmon
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- 
>> council at gnso.icann.org] On
>> Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis
>> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 10:11 AM
>> To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO
>> Subject: RE: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report
>>
>>
>> The same issue was raised at our table Avri.
>>
>> I believe your suggested change would be appropriate.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Adrian Kinderis
>> Managing Director
>> AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd
>> Level 8, 10 Queens Road
>> Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004
>> Ph: +61 3 9866 3710
>> Fax: +61 3 9866 1970
>> Email: adrian at ausregistry.com
>> Web: www.ausregistrygroup.com
>>
>> The information contained in this communication is intended for the
>> named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain
>> legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an
>> intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any  
>> action
>> in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error,
>> please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- 
>> council at gnso.icann.org]
>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Monday, 11 February 2008 12:59 PM
>> To: Council GNSO
>> Subject: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> At my table this evening, we had a conversation about Executive
>> summary point #5 - specifically the last phrase "... without GNSO's
>> concurrence"
>>
>> While explaning it this, I explained that it really refered to the
>> need to have have resolved the issue as explained in #2 and the ICANn
>> community had  achieved a common agreement of an interim procedure.
>>
>> I am wondering whether we might be to change it to say: " without
>> prior community concurrence"
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> a.
>
>




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20080210/a002e889/attachment.html>