Amsterdam report

[Mawaki Chango]

Yes, and I did wrote .com was just _one example_. As a matter of
fact, Chuck Gomes (VeriSign) attended the meeting and we had an
exchange about the issue, so it was just straightforward that I gave
that example. Obviously, VS cannot be the only one that has interest
to see (the purpose and the meaning of) their TLD name protected
across potentially all language strings. I personally find it a
little bit disturbing that VS (for .com) does not care at all about
.biz but complains about losses due to .gongsi (the Chinese .com),
and would like us beleive that this is for the Internet's security
and stability. It might be. The point is that there is a growing
opinion that unless there is clear evidence that this kind of
diversity threatens the stability and security of the Internet, ICANN
should set up policies that promote competition, inluding at registry
level, rather than policies that would protect (incumbent) business
interests. Anyway, as I said, VS happened to be there and they happen
to be the biggest - so they are just a good example.

The focus of the meeting was on drafting the committee's own document
on the selection criteria and allocation methods, etc. rather than
discussing specific papers/contributions that have been publicly
sumitted or otherwise. The staff compiled the public comments among
other materials that were distributed to the participants, though the
links to those resources were sent beforehand for the committee
members to read as part of their homework. I myself did read the
complete version of a couple of additional comments posted on the
ICANN website, inlcuding yours (e.g., subject: "Comment (rant) on the
PDP") and the .berlin's.

Thanks for the link.

Mawaki

--- Danny Younger <dannyyounger at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Re:  "VeriSign would no longer be entitled to claim
> that it should own the transliterations of the .com in
> the other language strings, especially those spoken by
> huge populations"
>
> VeriSign is not the only organization claiming such
> entitlement.  Please see the PIR document "Principles
> for the Foundation of Top Level IDNs" that puts
> forward similar arguments.  PIR has cited brand
> fragmentation, security and stability issues,
> registrar disenfranchisement, regulatory burdens,
> intellectual property concerns and internet
> fragmentation worries in defense of their view with
> respect to managing all .org IDN transliterations.
>
> http://www.icann.org/topics/idn/pir-idn-principles-23jun06.pdf
>
> Was this document discussed in Amsterdam?
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>