IDN Forums - Internationalized Domain Names  
Home | idntools | 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 1st November 2009, 01:26 PM
555 555 is offline
ком.ком コム.コム
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,141
iTrader: (33)
Rep Power: 1485
555 has disabled reputation
Please Fast Track Us, Too! - IP Watch

Yet despite the applause, there has also has been criticism to the fast-track privilege for the IDN ccTLDs. Representatives from registrars and companies in non-Latin-script countries said, they hoped for a quick opening up for privately ventured, generic TLDs.

Huiming Yu from the China Organization on Name Administration Standard (CONAC) said there is a strong desire from Chinese internet users for IDN gTLDs. “In my opinion, the opening date for application of IDN gTLDs should be made clear as soon as possible,” he said. “We need our fast track process for that, too.” Allowing IDN ccTLD to run first was said to be even as a competitive advantage and threat to the private ventures.

A second group not happy with the headstart of their country code colleagues seem to be some of the large existing registries. Steve Del Bianco of NetChoice said that users could be expected to attempt “to go to YouTube.com in Arabic, in Chinese, or Japanese. And it won’t be there. Neither will Google.com or eBay.com or Facebook.com. Because we haven’t provided a plan for that.”

The question of whether .com in its Chinese version will go automatically to VeriSign (the US firm which holds exclusive rights to .com) might result in more debates, though, as China already had at least tested the label for “company” (gongsi) in Chinese over the years. And the fact that the ccTLD operators can market their names first resulted in a competitive advantage for them, while everybody else had to wait.

ICANN expert Milton Mueller drew a critical conclusion from the meeting summarising: “Now the national monopoly country code registries get to enter the IDN space before anyone else because ICANN wants their political support. In the meantime, hundreds if not thousands of legitimate potential innovators are deferred endlessly, their investors’ money burned, their ideas and dreams stranded.”


http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/...level-domains/
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 1st November 2009, 01:49 PM
idnowner's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 599
iTrader: (3)
Rep Power: 364
idnowner is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Please Fast Track Us, Too! - IP Watch

Quote:
Originally Posted by 555 View Post
The question of whether .com in its Chinese version will go automatically to VeriSign (the US firm which holds exclusive rights to .com) might result in more debates, though, as China already had at least tested the label for “company” (gongsi) in Chinese over the years.
With that logic, then New.net (remember them?) might claim rights to their multitude of (alternate root, plug-in required) gTLDs, like .art, .chat, .game, .shop, .mp3, etc., which they've "tested" (and actually sold) over the years. Just because you've created, and used an unsanctioned TLD, doesn't mean you've acquired any legitimate rights.

Last edited by idnowner; 1st November 2009 at 02:01 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 1st November 2009, 01:51 PM
Rubber Duck's Avatar
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Czech Republic (For those of you from USA = Chechnya)
Posts: 15,484
iTrader: (59)
Rep Power: 2933
Rubber Duck will become famous soon enoughRubber Duck will become famous soon enoughRubber Duck will become famous soon enoughRubber Duck will become famous soon enoughRubber Duck will become famous soon enoughRubber Duck will become famous soon enoughRubber Duck will become famous soon enoughRubber Duck will become famous soon enough
Re: Please Fast Track Us, Too! - IP Watch

Quote:
Originally Posted by idnowner View Post
With that logic, then New.net (remember them?) might claim rights to their multitude of (alternate root, plug-in required) TLDs, like .art, .chat, .game, .shop, .mp3, .game, etc., which they've "tested" (and actually sold) over the years. Just because you've created, and used a unsanctioned TLD, doesn't mean you've acquired any legitimate rights.
Exactly.
__________________
All offers to sell are void.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 1st November 2009, 02:28 PM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 7,682
iTrader: (58)
Rep Power: 1724
bwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enough
Re: Please Fast Track Us, Too! - IP Watch

The deal on how that rollout of gtld, and cctld idn.idn has been subject of numerous discussions. Seems to me an agreement was already reached:

The GNSO Council, in its comments in Response to the ccNSO-GAC Issues Report on IDN Issues (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/ccnso-g...se-20feb08.pdf), as well as in its comments on the IDNC WG Final Report (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/idn-tld...rt-14aug08.pdf) expressed that “the introduction of IDN gTLDs or IDN ccTLDs should not be delayed because of lack of readiness of one category, but if they are not introduced at the same time, steps should be taken so that neither category is advantaged or disadvantaged, and procedures should be developed to avoid possible conflicts.”

Further, the GNSO Council made a resolution in January 2009 to assert that “the GNSO Council strongly believes that neither the New gTLD or ccTLD fast track process should result in IDN TLDs in the root before the other unless both the GNSO and ccNSO so agree.”

_________________________________________________________________________________

Seems that if Verisign works with the cctlds to "follow behind" their cctld idn.idn releases with any move to alias gtld's to idn.idn everyone should be happy- eh?
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 1st November 2009, 02:38 PM
Rubber Duck's Avatar
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Czech Republic (For those of you from USA = Chechnya)
Posts: 15,484
iTrader: (59)
Rep Power: 2933
Rubber Duck will become famous soon enoughRubber Duck will become famous soon enoughRubber Duck will become famous soon enoughRubber Duck will become famous soon enoughRubber Duck will become famous soon enoughRubber Duck will become famous soon enoughRubber Duck will become famous soon enoughRubber Duck will become famous soon enough
Re: Please Fast Track Us, Too! - IP Watch

The IP crowd have broken the time line on gTLDs but there is no doubt an obligation on ICANN now to deliver on IDN gTLDs. That can only happen, however, with delegations that require no new registrations. New IDN gTLDs that have no connection with existing TLDs would produce as many problems as the introduction of New ASCII TLDs and would no doubt provoke even more protests from the American base IP crowd.

The only way forward is to bundle IDNs to the existing gTLDs, and Verisign knows this. It would be interesting to know how much planning they have put in to get to this rather opportune position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwhhisc View Post
The deal on how that rollout of gtld, and cctld idn.idn has been subject of numerous discussions. Seems to me an agreement was already reached:

The GNSO Council, in its comments in Response to the ccNSO-GAC Issues Report on IDN Issues (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/ccnso-g...se-20feb08.pdf), as well as in its comments on the IDNC WG Final Report (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/idn-tld...rt-14aug08.pdf) expressed that “the introduction of IDN gTLDs or IDN ccTLDs should not be delayed because of lack of readiness of one category, but if they are not introduced at the same time, steps should be taken so that neither category is advantaged or disadvantaged, and procedures should be developed to avoid possible conflicts.”

Further, the GNSO Council made a resolution in January 2009 to assert that “the GNSO Council strongly believes that neither the New gTLD or ccTLD fast track process should result in IDN TLDs in the root before the other unless both the GNSO and ccNSO so agree.”

_________________________________________________________________________________

Seems that if Verisign works with the cctlds to "follow behind" their cctld idn.idn releases with any move to alias gtld's to idn.idn everyone should be happy- eh?
__________________
All offers to sell are void.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 1st November 2009, 03:26 PM
555 555 is offline
ком.ком コム.コム
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,141
iTrader: (33)
Rep Power: 1485
555 has disabled reputation
Re: Please Fast Track Us, Too! - IP Watch

http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/ic...e-critics-2292
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 05:35 PM.

Site Sponsors
Your ad here
buy idns
domain name lawyer
buy t-shirt
מחיר הזהב

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, 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