[discuss] Options for root zone
veni at veni.com
Sun Jan 19 15:29:04 UTC 2014
Thank you for the points.
As someone, who has been involved in the whole process since the
beginning of this case (it started on June 18, 2008, with a letter
of the Bulgarian minister to Paul Twomey), and commenting in my personal
capacity, as my signature below states, I'd like to bring some light to
this question, as it seems to continue to be discussed, and with more
and more interpretations, which go farther and farther from the facts.
Other people also quote the Tunis Agenda, and make references to it, as
if it is an international treaty, and therefore it can be violated. It
is not. No country was involved in the decision about .bg (IDN), and
therefore article 63 was not even touched in any distant way.
Thanks to the multistakeholder model, the IDN fast track was changed
recently, and in the case that was quoted, it allows the Bulgarian
government to continue with its efforts to get the .bg IDN.
The Bulgarian government spent quite a lot of time discussing the issue
with the broader internet community in Bugaria, and with ICANN, and
nobody would reject the fact that these and other discussions, and also
contributions from the ICANN community, and many other involved people
and organizations, contributed to the change of the Fast Track policy.
The Tunis Agenda addresses the need for multilingual domain names (not
ccTLDs), and today this need is largely satisfied - via the Fast Track,
but also via the new gTLD program.
So, instead of seeing this as a "violation" of para 63, I see the
changes in the program, as a successful attempt by the global Internet
community (including governments, AND including the Bulgarian government
in particular) to make sure that the interests of all concerned internet
users are being addressed.
On 01/19/14 00:48, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> On 19 jan 2014, at 04:23, Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com
> <mailto:pouzin at well.com>> wrote:
>> Whether or not *?? *is standardized by ISO is not the point. The
>> Tunis agenda is strict:
>> /« 63. Countries should not be involved in decisions regarding
>> another country's country-code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD). Their
>> legitimate interests, as expressed and defined by each country, in
>> diverse ways, regarding decisions affecting their ccTLDs, need to be
>> respected, upheld and addressed via a flexible and improved framework
>> and mechanisms. »
> There is a difference between ccTLDs and IDN-ccTLDs, where the policy
> for the latter is developed by the PDP hosted by the ccNSO in ICANN.
>> I don't get it. Obviously *?? *and other non ascii ccTLD are IDN and
>> potential sources of confusing similarities. This results from
>> ICANN's policy in constraining IDN specifications so that it would
>> not be possible to introduce non ascii scripts.
> If you believe a policy development process within ICANN has developed
> the wrong policy, then the place where that should be changed is
> within that very same policy development process.
>> The chinese team who developed IDN was smart enough to overcome the
> IDN was developed by a working group in the IETF, not by a team in
> China. Individuals from China was part of the core group of developers
> in the IETF.
>> It is normal for users to view ccTLD's from their national context,
>> regardless of the local scripts they use. As ICANN was unable to
>> change its US-ASCII centric fixation the design was botched.
> The issue is not so much an ICANN issue as a Unicode issue where
> unification was done for some scripts but not for others. Because of
> that, different scripts will get different treatment.
> Once again, this should be brought up in the ccNSO hosted PDP and not
>> E.g. MORPHO could be a perfectly regular new gTLD. Can anyone tell if
>> the string is ascii or cyrillic ?
> The policy separates the policy for 2-character IDN-ccTLDS from other
> possible IDN strings, so I do not understand what this example have to
> do with the issue you originally has brought up in this thread.
>> We need a new linguistically customized internet.
> Please keep complaints on the result of an open policy development
> process separated from other interests.
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
The opinions expressed above are those of the
author, not of any organizations, associated
with or related to him in any given way.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss