[At-Large] ALAC Statement for the ICANN Board Request for Responses

[Siavash Shahshahani]

Hello Danny,
A few remarks about your comments on ALAC statement on IDNs:
1. To many, slowing down the implementation of IDN gTLDs is neither
possible nor desirable. The concern has generally been the opposite, that
ICANN has been too slow in this field. So instead, let us hasten the
implementation of IDN ccTLDs to catch up with gTLDs.
2. There is no reason to treat the ISO list as anything sacrosanct. When
Internet and DNS started, a need was felt to assign each territory a
TLD,and the ISO list was almost tailor-made for that. The situation with
IDN is totally different. Many territories and countries don't need IDNs,
while some others have multiple needs due to ethnic and linguistic
diversity within the territory. I am pessimistic that a list can be drawn
up in the near future because of the political implications of such an
official list. A general-purpose official list of language/scripts
assigned to a territory will need the ratification of too many players,
but an Internet-specific list would be less controversial and perhaps even
tolerable to governments that do not want to give official recognition to
a minority but would tolerate a minority TLD.
3. Your concern about stability is of course very legitimate. The recent
movements by ccNSO can perhaps alleviate some of your worries. While
trying to start a full-fledged PDP for IDNcc's, ccNSO(in tandem with
GAC)is seeking a limited fast-track implementation of cc IDNs carefully
planned not to include any element that would possibly run into conflict
with the outcome of the PDP. These should be unveiled in Los Angeles.
Siavash

> Dear all,
>
> I have concerns with regard to the answer provided to
> question #7 (cited below):
>
> Q.7: Should a list of IDN ccTLD strings be mandated?
>
> A universal mandating should not be implemented at the
> initial stage. Users have the right to use IDNs rather
> than a duty to do so. Neither the automatically
> converting ISO 3166 into an IDN list solution is far
> from being realistic: this would impose some ccTLDs
> that have no demand for IDN use to implement them,
> which is obviously contradictory to the purpose of
> IDNs. Also, compiling a mandatory list would slow down
> the IDN development process. The crucial question at
> this stage is how the local community consensus can be
> reached in case IDN implementation is necessary.
> One solution to that is the proposal by APTLD, which
> states that it is important to allow each interested
> existing ccTLD to propose ONE string and provide six
> months for Internet community at Large including the
> ‘affected’ Communities and Governments to voice
> possible objections and/or comments. If no serious
> reservations are aired then the string may go into the
> root. However, even though a list of IDN ccTLD can be
> complied through the one-string-one-ccTLD approach it
> cannot be a final solution, and if made mandatory, it
> will cause serious rivalry between different script
> users in one ccTLD territory. Issues related to that
> include: What makes one script may be chosen over
> others in a multiple-script ccTLD territory? Is this
> reflected in the local cultural or social
> policy/strategy? How those minority script users can
> protest against this and will they protest?
>
> My comment:
>
> Stability is my primary concern.  From a stability
> perspective I see an ongoing value in an authoritative
> "mandated list", and yes, I also do understand the
> reticence to invoke the ISO processes (as these can
> easily take 3-5 years) owing to the fear the IDN gTLDs
> could be launched prior to the conclusion of the ISO
> effort (and people might indeed choose to opt for a
> gTLD in a local script).
>
> To resolve this worry, I would advise the development
> of a policy that prohibits the launch of IDN gTLDs
> until such time as the ISO effort is complete (so that
> competition may proceed thereafter on a level playing
> field).
>
> The issues raised in the latter portion of the current
> answer to question 7 are precisely why an ISO
> "mandated list" should be used (as the process
> resolves such issues before a list becomes
> authoritative).
>
>
>
>
>       ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Catch up on fall's hot new shows on Yahoo! TV. Watch previews, get
> listings, and more!
> http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/3658
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org
> ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
>


-------------------------------------------------
IPM/IRNIC
P.O.Box 19395-5564, Shahid Bahonar Sq.
Tehran 19548, Iran
Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80; 22 82 80 81, ext 113
Cell: (+98 912)104 2501
Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00
Email: shahshah at irnic.ir, shahshah at nic.ir
-----------------------------------------------