[At-Large] ALAC statement for Public Forum

[Annette Muehlberg]

Hong,

thank you. if you think it is enough that this issue has been raised at GNSO 
IDN WG Report making our position clear we might not need to do it in this 
public forum but should add it to our report under the section IDN.

Best Greetings
Annette

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Hong Xue" <hongxueipr at gmail.com>
To: "Annette Muehlberg" <annette.muehlberg at web.de>
Cc: <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC statement for Public Forum


> Annette,
>
>> In the working group on IDNs we also pointed out that there is no such 
>> thing
>> as translated / equivalent skripts to excisting TLDs - registries do not
>> have automatic entitlement to expressions of their names to IDNs.
>>
>
> This issue has been raised at GNSO IDN WG Report. It was under the
> discussion on confusing similarity--namely, whether semantic
> similarity (including but not limited to meaningful similarity) should
> be excluded from IDN gTLDs. I, as the ALAC Liaison, voiced very
> strongly on this issue. My opinion was eventually recorded into the
> Report. So, now you can see that only visual and phonetic similarity
> will be considered. Thus, translation of ASCII gTLD is not even
> supported at the GNSO. Is this still a very big concern in user
> community?
>
> Of course, I'm very OK to reiterate this at the Forum.
>
> Hong
>
>
>
> Many gtld Registries contends
>
>
>
>
> On 2/15/08, Annette Muehlberg <annette.muehlberg at web.de> wrote:
>> Thank you very much for putting this together - at night. It is really 
>> great
>> fun to attend an ICANN Meeting when they turn off the internet access 
>> right
>> after the official meeting at 18:30. Great working conditions.
>>
>> In the working group on IDNs we also pointed out that there is no such 
>> thing
>> as translated / equivalent skripts to excisting TLDs - registries do not
>> have automatic entitlement to expressions of their names to IDNs.
>>
>> I think that ALAC and RALOs agree on that position and it would be good 
>> if
>> we could point that out in the public forum as a joint statement. Any
>> objections?
>>
>> It would be great if you could reply within the next hour, so we can 
>> state
>> this in the public forum - otherwise we could add it to the report later
>> after our meeting tonight .
>>
>> best
>> Annette
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <cheryl at hovtek.com.au>
>> To: <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 2:58 AM
>> Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC statement for Public Forum
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > The aggrigated contributions from all contributers with a few extra
>> > general introducion bits is (temporarily) up on our Wiki at
>> > https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?at_large_advisory_committee
>> >
>> >  Temprarilly because after it is given any final tweeks and presented
>> > it will become a linked page from where it is now but I wanted to
>> > minimise clicks to find for tomorrow...
>> >
>> > CLO
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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