IDN Forums - Internationalized Domain Names  
Home | Advertise on idnforums | Premium Membership

Go Back   IDN Forums - Internationalized Domain Names > IDN Discussions > General Discussion

General Discussion Feel free to talk about anything and everything in this board.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 29th March 2007, 05:32 PM
Rubber Duck's Avatar
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Czech Republic (For those of you from USA = Chechnya)
Posts: 15,929
iTrader: (59)
Rep Power: 4510
Rubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura about
Transcript - IDN - GAC - GNSO & ccNSO Working Groups Workshop

http://icann.org/meetings/lisbon/tra...wg-28mar07.htm


and is this guy ever going to wish he had never asked the question!

>>CHUCK GOMES: Thanks, RAM. I am Chuck Gomes, I am chair of the GNSO reserved names working group, and I was very interested in your discussion in terms of two-character names.

And in fact, you have said some things that are very helpful for our reserved names working group.

What I would like to know is what the most effective way for the reserved names working group to get some definitive answers with regard to single-character and two-character names at both the top and second level for IDN names in scripts.

Now, you obviously, several of you addressed some issues there, and I am not asking for additional discussion on this right now because it would take too long. We'd probably monopolize the rest of the time and I don't want to do that.

But it's likely that the reserved names working group will reconvene in a couple weeks, and those are issues that we would like to get a firm handle on.

So if I could get some points of contact that the group could interact with in this regard, I would very much appreciate it.<<



This is where I choked on my Coffee and reached for the Popcorn:

>>KIRA LITVINIA: My name is Kira Litvinia, and I'm representing Russian registry.

And I'm one of those who's ready to go. And -- but, I mean, we do know what this string should be and everything. And I mean, we -- this may also help us to avoid several difficulties that we may have now if we try to implement IDNs under dot RU....<<




Vint starts to realise that engine is starting to splutter:


>>The last thing I wanted to mention is to reinforce Martin Boyle's point. Given that we can't rely on simple things like any three-symbol string is reserved for internationalized ccTLDs, and everything else is open, if we cannot make such simple rules, then if we fail to protect all of the internationalized ccTLD choices up-front, we may have a collision if we try to allow gTLD creation of IDNs at the same time that we're also trying to create ccTLD IDNs.

Everyone who is ready to go will hate to hear me say that, because they will say, "Well, I can't wait for the next ten years until country X decides what it's going to do for its internationalized ccTLD symbols."

But I do believe Martin has a point, that we need to find a way to protect the ccTLD community which has not yet decided so that an accidental gTLD selection doesn't actually create a conflict.

I don't know how to solve that problem. But I suggest to you that it is a problem and that we need to look for ways to protect the ccTLD community.<<



And a Pearl of Wisdom from Vint:

>>The second point is that a different way of thinking about dealing with the introduction of IDNs is to not make a distinction between gTLDs that use IDNs and ccTLDs that use IDNs. And so for a moment, I'd like to ask you to suspend your disbelief at this notion. Let's imagine for a moment that we only have TLDs and that we don't make any distinction between them. Let's imagine that someone wants to have a new TLD. And let's imagine that it doesn't matter whether the motivation for that new TLD is that it's intended for use as a country code or it's intended for use as a more generic top-level domain. Set aside that distinction for a moment and imagine what process we might want to introduce that would allow the proposal to be dealt with.

A proposal for a particular string, whether it is an IDN or not, may create or may result in opposition, whether it's represented in ASCII or represented in some character set doesn't matter. The proposal in this combined context could generate some opposition. In fact, I'm sure we have some examples that you can think of that have had that characteristic.

So we might ask ourselves, how could we assure that a proposal for a new TLD, regardless of whether it's intended for ccTLD purposes or not, regardless of whether it is represented in ASCII or represented in some other character set, how could we deal with a disagreement or opposition?

If we had a resolution process that allowed an opposition to a particular proposal to be resolved, if we had one, then, Martin, it might deal with the question of protecting the ccTLD community from accidental or deliberate depredations

by the gTLD community, because they would be the same community from the standpoint of resolving opposition to a particular proposal.

So I almost suggest that if we back away from the distinctions that we've been making and say, let's figure out if there is a process that will allow any proposal to be exposed to opposition and find a way to resolve it, then we could actually proceed right away, because any of the proposed ICC TLDs could be proposed in this combined context. And if there were issues from any of the ccTLD or gTLD community, those issues would have to be raised and resolved.

Now, I've invented a nonexistent process. I haven't said anything about how it would work. And I don't exactly know how it would work. But it could be that that common dispute resolution process might be sufficient to allow us to move ahead on all fronts as long as parties who are concerned about any particular proposal have a way to raise those issues and have them resolved. <<



and How about this for a fly in the ointment?

>>WERNER STAUB: ...Finally, with respect to the other communities that don't have a ccTLD, I think that it is great that we have the GNSO process and the gTLD concept to our rescue, so to speak, and be lucky to have one example. We have dot cat which is a culturally linguistic TLD that is actually based on the concept of a gTLD, even though it is about culture and language. And I think in the case of Tamil, this is probably very good in the solution. So we might have a list of reserved strings with the idea that it might represent a territory country that is in the list, exactly matching meaning -- intended to match that meaning, whereas what is not intended to match exactly would come forward in the gTLD process.<<



and now straight off the road and across a ploughed field:

>>EDMON CHUNG: Now we're looking at something that comes from the language community. And I'm really -- I know when I make this particular comment I am going way past, way, way ahead of myself, but what about the contract issues? Like if we create such a -- such types of TLDs or IDN ccTLDs, or whatever it is, does it have a contract with ICANN? Is it managed by -- Who does manage it?

So perhaps if there are really communities that are ready to go, which we have heard, we need to create a process by which they come -- you know, become a basket, again, using the word, of experimental TLDs that is a slightly different category.<<



and then they hit the soft spot and grounded the differential:

>>But the messages I heard yesterday in the session was that you could start producing lists of countries in particular scripts very, very quickly, using a community-based system, and have something that would be recognized and recognizable as an international standard. And we were talking about sort of -- and my short-term memory is terrible, so somebody correct me if I've got it wrong -- something in the order of six, nine, 12 months for fast track, although in the worst case, if you had to go through the slow, grinding process of an international standards process, it might take you up to five years.

So certainly one would want to try to look for how might you be able to get a methodology and then -- and I pick up this point very, very clearly from those people who said, "well, we're ready to go," from those communities, those languages groups where they are ready to go, because in those cases, it should be very, very quick and very easy to populate lists.

And you don't have to get every country in every script ready at the same time. You've just got to get every script ready. Because while I'm pretty darned sure that there will be people who will, in scripts that the average Brit will not understand, who will be able to show that they have got rights to "United Kingdom." And that, I think, does start leading to serious problems.<<



And the then somewhat Ironically the Arab comes to their rescue:

>>As MINC chairman, as an Arab, but I'm also going to request the Dutch to allow me to be adopted for two minutes, because I'm not going to be impolite or rude, but I'm going to be blunt.

I think we're asking the wrong questions, ladies and gentlemen.

The question is not about how long the string should be, because -- and the question should not be about whether it's the ccTLD first or the -- or -- to be implementing IDNs, or whether it's the gTLD to be implementing IDNs. I think the question we have to ourselves is, are we trying to assist the international community and the local language communities to become enabled sooner than later to have Internet in their own language? Is this our objective? Or are we asking ourselves the question of how do we make this process deliver this objective?

Because the truth of the matter is, if somebody's thirsty, if the rain provides them water to drink, they will drink it. If they have to dig into the ground, they will pull it out and drink it.<<
__________________
All offers to sell are void.

Last edited by Rubber Duck; 29th March 2007 at 08:20 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 29th March 2007, 07:30 PM
Drewbert's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,091
iTrader: (20)
Rep Power: 0
Drewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgy
Re: Transcript - IDN - GAC - GNSO & ccNSO Working Groups Workshop

So when I said yesterday that things would clear up once this transcript was released, I was was off base, huh?

It's very hard to ground the diff of a monster truck, but they appear to have been successful.
__________________
It's all jaded style to me.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 29th March 2007, 10:32 PM
Rubber Duck's Avatar
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Czech Republic (For those of you from USA = Chechnya)
Posts: 15,929
iTrader: (59)
Rep Power: 4510
Rubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura about
Re: Transcript - IDN - GAC - GNSO & ccNSO Working Groups Workshop

Trying to draw out some conclusion from the closing comments of the panel, who presumably are resposible for formulating the recommendations:

>>MARTIN BOYLE:

....which is why the more I think of it, about it, the more I think it is important that just for the country side, we need to be able to maintain some sort of structure that people will represent, even if only to protect themselves from the people who wish to do bad things to them by pretending that they're something that they're not...

>>EDMON CHUNG:

....some of the ccTLDs or ccTLD managers believe or feel that they are -- have a lot of urgency and that they are ready to go, maybe coming back to my idea, maybe there could be a different basket for different type of experiment that is neither ccTLD nor gTLD....

>>HIRO HOTTA:

Given that some of us are ready to go, as several of us said, let's go with (inaudible).

First phase should be very simple, a small number of ccTLD and maybe small number of gTLDs, with review, challenged, objection, process, then more sets of investigation would be made to make more phases. Thanks.

>>JONATHAN SHEA:

Echoing Edmon's and Hiro-San's comments I think a key feature coming out from this discussion is that the process itself inevitably involved both the GNSO and the ccNSO constituencies. It seems that this is quite obvious now...

>>MINJUNG PARK:

...Whenever dealing with IDN TLDs, I think we should always consider the demonstration of support from the local language community...

>> KELLY KANG;

.....The introduction of IDN TLDs is expected to be a turning point in the history of the Internet.....

>>MANAL ISMAIL: Actually, I have nothing to add. Just to maybe I reiterate my previous comment that to get things moving faster, maybe we should identify all the issues and then categorize issues of crucial urgency that needs to be tackled before the introduction of the IDNs and other issues that we can go on investigating.

>>WERNER STAUB: Again, the important thing is to be able to move fast. And probably one of the ways to do so, if you take the metaphor of a tunnel, is to drill it from both sides rather than from just one side.....

>>TAN TIN WEE:

...So I think in the building of this global information infrastructure, maybe it might be useful for us to remember one interesting Chinese saying.

(speaking Chinese). Roads are actually walked into existence by people.

There's no road there, but people walk along those roads, the path, and it becomes a road....

>>MING-CHENG LIANG: I think it's a very good comment. I think I want to comment, is that IDN itself, of course, is very complicated issues and I think like the ISO process, this type of ICANN, it will go on. But more, I think we should more concentrate on the initial phase. What should we do in the initial phase?

If we want to be able to implement IDN to the needs of the people at the present, at a shorter time, I think that we've got to be able to start lightweight and simple and with an amendable process.

And I think there's something we should concentrate on, at least at the present time, and make the IDN fly.

>>PANKAJ AGRAWALA: After the wonderful concluding statement made by Tan Tin Wee, I can only say if the Internet is all about being intuitive, then the local language has to be empowered and the meaningfulness of a language, the character set that supports that language and the community that speaks that language has to be established.

>>RAM MOHAN: Clearly, IDN at the top level is an idea whose time has come. It seems to me that perhaps there's distinction between ccNSO, GNSO that seems somehow relevant in the ASCII area, perhaps isn't as relevant when we're talking about the development of basic policy for IDNs....
__________________
All offers to sell are void.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 29th March 2007, 10:38 PM
domainguru's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,835
iTrader: (14)
Rep Power: 2517
domainguru has a spectacular aura aboutdomainguru has a spectacular aura aboutdomainguru has a spectacular aura aboutdomainguru has a spectacular aura aboutdomainguru has a spectacular aura aboutdomainguru has a spectacular aura aboutdomainguru has a spectacular aura aboutdomainguru has a spectacular aura aboutdomainguru has a spectacular aura about
Re: Transcript - IDN - GAC - GNSO & ccNSO Working Groups Workshop

I love all their positive comments about IDN, especially the Chinese saying about "roads being walked into existence", which is brilliant and exactly what is needed in this situation.

Yet ... and its a big yet ... nobody seems to have a clear idea of what footsteps need to be taken to get the road building underway.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 29th March 2007, 10:44 PM
Rubber Duck's Avatar
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Czech Republic (For those of you from USA = Chechnya)
Posts: 15,929
iTrader: (59)
Rep Power: 4510
Rubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura about
Re: Transcript - IDN - GAC - GNSO & ccNSO Working Groups Workshop

Quote:
Originally Posted by domainguru
I love all their positive comments about IDN, especially the Chinese saying about "roads being walked into existence", which is brilliant and exactly what is needed in this situation.

Yet ... and its a big yet ... nobody seems to have a clear idea of what footsteps need to be taken to get the road building underway.
I think they know what they want, and I think they will leave the Board in no doubt as to what they want, but may not wish to voice it publicly.

Guessing and Translating into Duck Venacular, it goes something like this:

"Lets f*cking stick one or two in the Root Zone now and see what happens!"
__________________
All offers to sell are void.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 30th March 2007, 05:53 AM
clipper's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Office
Posts: 1,003
iTrader: (26)
Rep Power: 3112
clipper is a jewel in the roughclipper is a jewel in the roughclipper is a jewel in the roughclipper is a jewel in the roughclipper is a jewel in the roughclipper is a jewel in the roughclipper is a jewel in the roughclipper is a jewel in the roughclipper is a jewel in the roughclipper is a jewel in the roughclipper is a jewel in the rough
Re: Transcript - IDN - GAC - GNSO & ccNSO Working Groups Workshop

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubber Duck
"Lets f*cking stick one or two in the Root Zone now and see what happens!"
So, which one or two, ru and tw?:o
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 30th March 2007, 06:37 AM
touchring's Avatar
Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 7,547
iTrader: (29)
Rep Power: 1260
touchring is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Transcript - IDN - GAC - GNSO & ccNSO Working Groups Workshop

Quote:
Originally Posted by domainguru
I love all their positive comments about IDN, especially the Chinese saying about "roads being walked into existence", which is brilliant and exactly what is needed in this situation.

Yet ... and its a big yet ... nobody seems to have a clear idea of what footsteps need to be taken to get the road building underway.

"roads being walked into existence"

路是人走出來的


The users in Japan conjured idn.com before they knew idn existed.

1. 価格.com
2. 一休.com
3. 比較.com

Last edited by touchring; 30th March 2007 at 06:44 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 30th March 2007, 07:33 AM
Rubber Duck's Avatar
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Czech Republic (For those of you from USA = Chechnya)
Posts: 15,929
iTrader: (59)
Rep Power: 4510
Rubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura about
Re: Transcript - IDN - GAC - GNSO & ccNSO Working Groups Workshop

Quote:
Originally Posted by clipper
So, which one or two, ru and tw?:o
Well dot CN has to be a prime candidate and so does dot Com in Arabic. Others on the list could include Dot JP, Dot KR and Dot Coms version could show up in any of these languages.

As dot RU is only just launching IDN, it is not really a prime candidate especially as there is some debate about its main IDN representation.

Allowing dot TW before dot CN is the kind of provocation that starts World Wars.
__________________
All offers to sell are void.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 12:58 AM.

Site Sponsors
Your ad here
buy t-shirt
מחיר הזהב

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0
Copyright idnforums.com 2005

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54