[CPWG] 2022 IGF & New gTLD Question

[gopal]

A generic TLD [domain extension] has an inherent meaning. It has a value outside of that created by the system.

A generic TLD is a monopoly on a generic term. As an example, there are many hotels but only gets .hotel. Here the word hotel is
a simply a word in the English language.

IMHO, how is this avoided in a multi-registrar & single registry system needs more transparency than is found now.

I surmise that money matters and so do the choice of IDNs.

[EPDP on IDNs is with Mr. Satish Babu et al.]

Sincerely,



Gopal T V
0 9840121302
https://vidwan.inflibnet.ac.in/profile/57545
https://www.facebook.com/gopal.tadepalli
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dr. T V Gopal
Professor
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
College of Engineering
Anna University
Chennai - 600 025, INDIA
Ph : (Off) 22351723 Extn. 3340
       (Res) 24454753
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
________________________________
From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
Sent: 07 December 2022 10:42
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff at jjnsolutions.com>
Cc: Avri <avri at doria.org>; Cpwg <cpwg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CPWG] 2022 IGF & New gTLD Question

Jeff said:


the GNSO SubPro Working Group found that there should be certain preferences for IDN gTLD Applications when queuing them up for evaluation….(There is a formula built in to ensure that).  But statements like this could increase the demand on ICANN to move faster with a round only dedicated to IDN gTLDs.  But of course this was NOT accepted by the GNSO though it was discussed thoroughly.

Hrm.

We know that the GNSO has the power to compel the Board, but is the opposite true? In the absence of GNSO action can the Board act on its own? (ie, to create a special round of IDN gTLDs)?
This could be one of those times where the public interest differs from that of the current domain buyer-seller cartel. The GNSO's lack of consensus does not render this a bad idea.

So, Olivier, you say that the ICANN Board is less of a slave to vested interests than in years past ... here's a chance to demonstrate it. Is it capable of reasonably debating the public-interest and readiness issues related to an IDN-only round in the absence of GNSO approval?

And then Jonathan said:

IDN gTLDs present extremely complex problems with respect to variants at both the top and second levels.  This is becoming painfully clear to the IDN ePDP working group which has been tackling these issues now for quite some time and still has a long way to go.
We already have enough IDN TLDs now in the wild to be able to collect useful data on whether or not they are (on the balance) more useful or troublesome in their current state. Without pausing on work to address the challenges, surely there must be a way to determine if an IDN round is worthwhile given the current state of the tech and policy.

The current status -- too much is still broken in IDN gTLDs but they're still safe to delegate -- is confusing to say the least. Either they're useful enough to do now (and Goran is correct) or they're not (and Goran is aspirational, and all IDN rollouts need to pause till the bugs are fixed.).
- Evan


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20221207/cec9a389/attachment-0001.html>