Re: [gtld-com] Request for final comments

[Thomas Keller <tom@schlund.de>]

Philip,

I want to voice my support for all of the points mentioned below
and suggest that paragraph 6 of the possible criteria which
referes to adding value to the dns should be taken out as well.
Out of my view it is very hard to define what really is adding
value and it contraticts our statement that the introduction
of new TLD should be bottom up and demand driven. If it is demand 
driven there is no need for a judgement of value because at the
end of the day the market will decide whether it is of value
or not and the business model connected to it will succeed or
fail.

Best,

tom

Am 28.05.2003 schrieb Chun Eung Hwi:
> Dear Philip Sheppard,
> 
> In your version 5 document, I think number 7 and 8 should be completely 
> taken out as Bruce Tonkin proposed. The present statement is reflecting 
> only a few comments while different views are unfairly not stated here. I 
> have already mentioned that different languages don't make any confusion 
> because language scheme is itself one distinguishing element. And in a 
> different comment, it was told that the correct equivalance in semantics 
> among different linguistic expressions could hardly be defined. To say 
> confusion between IDN and LDH names in generic TLD name space is absolutely 
> a nonsense.
> 
> Point 8 is interestingly contradictory to Point 7. In point 8, it accepts 
> IDN translation or transliteration of the existing sponsored gTLD even 
> under the very rigid condition while point 7 doesn't accept such 
> possibility. And point 8 is arguing such equivalent new TLDs should follow 
> the policies of the original sponsored gTLD. And also, here it acknowledge 
> the probability that its target community would be well served by IDN 
> translation or transliteration names or vice versa. It means that the 
> existing sponsored gTLD could not effectively cover up another language 
> specific target communtity. Moreover, as I mentioned above, different 
> language TLDs would have its own features from its language semantics. 
> Therefore, it is very natural for those names to adopt new policies for its 
> own name space.
> 
> As your text is refering, the above IDN related issues are very 
> controversial and to discuss those issues exclusively within the present 
> GNSO seems to be very inappropriate. We have already reached this consensus 
> throughout our discussion.
> 
> In conclusions number 2, "This is not to say there is support for anarchy" 
> is unnecessary at all. And nobody said "anarchy" or something similar to 
> that.
> 
> In possible objective criteria, number 2 is still not clear. I have 
> proposed some specific words like typographical confusion, variants or 
> derived words rather than very abstract and very comprehensive "confusingly 
> similar". I suggest the next sentence.
> 
> "Future expansion should avoid names that could make some confusion to net 
> users because they are typograhically similar to, variants or derived words 
> from the existing TLDs"
> 
> In strategy part number 11, "ICANN need not be in a position to have to 
> judge differentiation beyond the obvious" --> here "beyond the obvious" is 
> unnecessary and to be taken out.
> 
> In number 12, "Expansion of the name space of only sponsored gTLDs was 
> universally preferred by the constituencies ..." --> "universally" should 
> be deleted off - inappropriate expression here.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Chun Eung Hwi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, 23 May 2003 11:00:01 +0200, Philip Sheppard 
> <philip.sheppard@aim.be> wrote:
> 
> >Committee,
> >further to the GNSO Council meeting of May 23 it was agreed that there 
> >will be a further comment period on the committee's final report before 
> >adoption at the June meeting of Council.
> >
> >I will draft a new version incorporating additional comments. If you wish 
> >to comment on version 5 attached please do so. Comments already sent need 
> >not be repeated - they are noted and will be factored into the next 
> >version. In line with a helpful suggestion from the registrars, 
> >structurally the next version will separate out objectives in expanding 
> >the name space from criteria relevant to individual future name 
> >applicants.
> >
> >Comments no later than midnight your time zone Friday May 31 please.
> >
> >
> >Philip Sheppard
> >Chairman gTLDs committee
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Chun Eung Hwi
> General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone:     (+82) 2-2166-2216
> Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81   |   pcs:     (+82) 019-259-2667
> Seoul, 158-600, Korea       | eMail:   ehchun@peacenet.or.kr
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 

Gruss,

tom

(__)        
(OO)_____  
(oo)    /|\	A cow is not entirely full of
  | |--/ | *    milk some of it is hamburger!
  w w w  w