Re: [wg-c] S/K principles [Was: Working Group C agenda]

[tinwee@pobox.org.sg]

> The problem will be the string, for example .union has a complete different
> meaning in France (so in french) than in English !!!!!!! and may be it's an
> insult in some other language...so Do we have the goal to invent a global
> language????????

This is all the more reason there should be support for
multilingualism to be fair to all languages and peoples of the world.

Where there is a conflict in another language as described above, 
the opposing parties should seek conflict resolution. 
But this should not prevent the Internet from being globalised, supporting 
languages of various peoples of different races. Since Internet is widespread
today - even the villages in India and hills of Bhutan are getting access -
it is imperative that internet principles such as the S/K principles
should be internationalized.

bestrgds

Tan Tin Wee
National University of Singapore
tinwee@bic.nus.edu.sg

Jean-Michel Becar wrote:
> 
> Jon;
> 
> Sorry for not having more time to contribute to this very intersting debate,
> but I would like here to put my 2cts.
> 
> I fully support the terminology gTLD = Generic Top Level Domain (chartered
> or not) this makes the distinction between the ccTLDs (attached to a country
> at least by its 2 letter code, the policy and usage of it is something else)
> and the gTLDs which don't have any links to any particular country.
> 
> I have a little worry about the S/K principles and in particular with the
> principle #5
> 
> 5. The selection of a gTLD string should not confuse net users, and so
> gTLDs should be clearly differentiated by the string and/or by the
> marketing and functionality associated with the string.
> 
> The problem will be the string, for example .union has a complete different
> meaning in France (so in french) than in English !!!!!!! and may be it's an
> insult in some other language...so Do we have the goal to invent a global
> language????????
> 
> I take the opportunity to say something: We try or people want us here we
> fix all the problems which don't have an answer in the real world (vs
> virtual world = Internet), I mean people from IP community want us we fix
> their problem of trademarks on the net but this problem exists on the real
> world and they don't have any idea how to fix it. For example we have 3
> differents trademarks for Mont Blanc in France, which one has a right in
> >.com !!!!!!! And now S/K try to fix the problem of universal language !!!!!
> 
> Just my thoughs.
> 
> Jean-Michel Becar
> E.T.S.I.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Weinberg [mailto:weinberg@mail.msen.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2000 5:24 PM
> To: wg-c@dnso.org
> Cc: philip.sheppard@aim.be
> Subject: Re: [wg-c] S/K principles [Was: Working Group C agenda]
> 
>         A bunch of thoughts in response to Rick, Andrew D, Javier and Jamie:
> 
>         1.  In seeking to tweak the S/K principles, I have the great luxury
> that I
> didn't write them, so I have no pride of authorship.  I don't want to get
> too far away, though, from the initial *goal* of the S/K principles, which
> was to see if we could find a point of accommodation that would satisfy
> both folks like Kathy, who is committed to substantial namespace expansion
> and market competition, and folks like Philip, who believes that expansion
> will be safe only if the namespace is structured in an appropriate manner.
> (As Eric has pointed out, there's an obvious tension between getting the
> principles general enough so that they can win consensus, and specific
> enough so that they actually have bite.)
> 
>         2. We turn out to be operating under a really tight timeframe.  I
> mentioned in an earlier message that the NC is going to be transmitting its
> recommendations to the ICANN Board on April 20, and that we likely need to
> get our own recommendations to them before that date if they were to be
> useful.  Well, the NC has now scheduled a meeting and vote for April 18.
> So if we're to get our recommendations to them by (say) April 17, and we
> allow a week for a formal consensus call, that means we need to settle on
> the text of our proposed rough consensus points by April 10, which is . . .
> well . . . this Monday.  So we need to work fast if we're to accomplish
> anything.
> 
>         3. I think it's valuable that we include language directing that
> both open
> and restricted TLDs be included in the original set.  This isn't a new
> issue: There was a strong majority in favor of this proposition in the
> straw poll we took back in February.  I announced at the time that I wanted
> to issue a formal consensus call on the issue, but I pulled back because I
> didn't want to tread on Philip's toes (that is, I wanted to give S/K a fair
> chance to succeed before calling for a vote on a related point).
> 
>         4. On the "gTLD" terminology:  Our charter calls on us to make
> recommendations concerning "gTLDs."  The term "gTLD," *as used in the WG
> charter*, encompasses both open and chartered gTLDs.  (For example, the WG
> charter treats the question as open whether "each new gTLD [should] have a
> specific charter."  This isn't so crazy as some folks think; it's
> consistent with RFC 1591, in which Jon Postel referred to EDU, GOV, MIL and
> INT as all falling within the category of "generic TLDs.")
> 
>         Several people have urged that we'd do better to adopt the IAHC
> terminology, under which restricted TLDs and gTLDs are different classes of
> beasts.  I've got no objection to that in principle, but I don't want to
> set up a terminology that leaves us open to the (incorrect) objection that
> recommendations concerning chartered TLDs are beyond our authority.  My
> inclination, at this point, is just to avoid using the term "gTLD" at all,
> to the extent we can -- but I'm open to other ideas.
> 
>         5. I've revised the last draft of the principles (guidelines,
> whatever) to
> address the rest of the points people have made.  One of my goals was to
> make clear that though we are requiring applicants to think about
> enforcement issues, and to discuss them in the application, we are *not*
> requiring applicants to adopt any particular enforcement mechanism, and in
> particular we are not requiring them to control registrations: An applicant
> might simply explain that it will be relying on registrants to choose the
> particular TLD only if they feel they belong there.  As Jamie points out,
> this will depend on the nature of the TLD.
> 
>         So here's my most recent attempt.  Bouquets and brickbats welcomed.
> 
> Jon
> 
> - - - -
> 
> 1. The initial rollout of six to ten new gTLDs, followed by an evaluation
> period, should include both open, unrestricted TLDs and chartered TLDs with
> more limited scope.
> 
> 2. An application for a chartered TLD should explain what meaning will be
> imputed to the proposed TLD string, and how the applicant contemplates that
> the new TLD will be perceived by the relevant population of net users.
> 
> 3. An application for a chartered TLD should explain the mechanism(s) for
> charter enforcement.  The simplest possible enforcement mechanisms is
> registrant self-selection: that is, if .AUTOMOBILES is set up for entities
> in some way associated with the automobile world, the applicant might
> simply rely on its understanding that other entities will have no interest
> in registering in that TLD.  Alternatively, an applicant might choose a
> more elaborate, registry-driven enforcement mechanism.
> 
> 4. The selection of a TLD string should not confuse net users, and so TLDs
> should be clearly differentiated by the string and/or by the marketing and
> functionality associated with the string.
> 
> 5. New TLDs are important to meet the needs of an expanding Internet
> community.  They should serve both commercial and noncommercial goals.
> The authorization process for new TLDs should not be used as a means of
> protecting existing service providers from competition.