Re: [gtld-com] Request for final comments
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
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
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.
Chun Eung Hwi
On Fri, 23 May 2003 11:00:01 +0200, Philip Sheppard
> 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
> 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: email@example.com