[IDN-WG] [ALAC] The Problem of IDNs
vanda at uol.com.br
Fri May 9 18:27:20 UTC 2014
I am with Evan in this approach. In my view, if IDN are having problems
to reach the users, hence not generating competition, ICANN should engage
to see if there is a technical or competitive problem and both are , to my
view, inside the role of ICANN.
My 0.2 cents.
Polo Consultores Associados
Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
On 5/9/14, 3:11, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan at telly.org> wrote:
>On 9 May 2014 00:09, Rinalia Abdul Rahim
><rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com>wrote:
>> The challenge for ICANN is that it doesn't deal with application
>> level problems.
>ICANN's mandate is to promote acceptance of all TLDs. What's the point of
>rolling them out if the public can't access them and registrants can't
>maximize use of them?
>Actually, ICANN has already answered that question through the priorities
>embedded in the design of the new-gTLD program. If the primary goal of the
>expansion is to sell domains -- whether they are useful or not -- then
>support of application-level access is an afterthought. Which is exactly
>the case. So far within ICANN, "acceptance" has meant "acquisition" and
>It is IMO *fully* within ICANN's remit to take responsibility for
>domain-access issues at every level, including (arguably ESPECIALLY
>including) application-level. However, one might not get that impression
>given ICANN's moves to reduce the influence of the technical
>The application-level problems regarding IDNs etc should have been
>anticipated and addressed by ICANN long ago. Instead of concentrating all
>of its road-show efforts on enticing new TLD applicants, it should have
>been also soliciting the global developer community with more than a
>just started this year!!). Compare the efforts made to promote IPV6
>to all levels (by a different corner of ICANN, with the help of ISOC) to
>the effort made to implement cross-level support for all TLDs and all
>And now, ICANN is reaping what it has(n't) sown.
>The IDN support program should have been done completely independently
>the general TLD expansion, but instead was wrapped into it and has been
>unfortunately affected by that action. IDNs from ccTLD registries have now
>been adversely impacted because of the way the gTLD expansion unfolded.
>> Nevertheless, the successful adoption of IDN TLDs is arguably a success
>> measure for ICANN's TLD programme, so ICANN has a stake in seeing IDNs
>The goal of the gTLD program has been to maximize sales of domains, which
>to some eyes sufficiently constitutes adoption. Whether these domains are
>actually usable to end-users or useful to information providers has tended
>to be an incidental, almost accidental objective. (Were end-users or
>registrants ever surveyed in advance to find whether a TLD expansion was
>even necessary, let alone their needs from it?) Anyone following the gTLD
>program from the At-Large PoV has surely seen this emphasis throughout the
>program's development and rollout.
>So "success" depends upon how you measure it. By measures important inside
>the ICANN bubble, contracted parties having sold thousands upon thousands
>of useless, speculative, defensive and confusing domains constitutes
>success. It certainly constitutes revenue.
>It is quite possible that the lack of concern for new gTLDs shown by the
>application-development community reflects a broader public indifference
>the gTLD expansion that ICANN never really sought to discover (let alone
>address). And this indifference has affected the uptake in IDNs. One
>wonders what kind of remedial measures can make up for such a large
>strategic oversight. It may be up to groups like APTLD to take on the
>challenge ICANN has not. Or at very least take the leadership role that
>been lacking to date.
>IDN-WG mailing list
>IDN-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>IDN WG Wiki:
More information about the IDN-WG