The .áã story is very well analysed in previous postings by Daniel, and need no more explanation. To sum up, ICANN is resorting to well known dilatory tactics to elude its responsibility, and snow the issue.<br><br>In particular, the theory of "confusingly similar" ccTLD strings is a typical maneuver to divert attention from a more fundamental principle established in the UN WSIS Summit 2005 by the Tunis Agenda (TA), which reads:<br>
<br><b style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">« 63. Countries should not be involved in decisions regarding another country’s country-code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD). Their legitimate interests, as expressed and defined by each country, in diverse ways, regarding decisions affecting their ccTLDs, need to be respected, upheld and addressed via a flexible and improved framework and mechanisms. » <br>
</b><br>This is crystal clear. It is none of ICANN business to argue on Bulgarian .áã.<br><br>The USG has signed the TA. Was it just a scrap of paper ? It was not. Article 63 of the TA was worded in a way China wanted it, because she had already implemented Chinese TLDs. USG and ICANN had to accept the fact. There was nothing they could do, except pretending that Chinese names were just a minor twig subordinate to the ICANN DNS. A non event, sort of.<br>
<br>So, <b>acccording to TA, picking a cyrillic ccTLD is for Bulgaria to decide, and none other</b>.<br><br>Presumably ICANN does not see Bulgaria as a significant political actor, like China, and doesn't care much of Bulgarian wishes. Hence an easy opportunity to creep into a not well guarded territory, to expand its illegitimate monopoly. Familiar ICANN tactics, isn't ?<br>
<br>At this stage it is clear that playing cat and mouse game with ICANN on silly arguments is a waste of time.<br><br>Perhaps Bulgaria could write a letter to DOC, and remind them of the USG signature on the TA. It would be useful to get a response, even if it is plain fuzzy. But no response would also be significant.<br>
<br>Or ICANN could shift tactics and say "no objection to .áã, but it won't be in the ICANN root". If so, this position should be expressed in writing.<br><br>Bulgaria is a member of the EU. Commissioner Neelie Kroes would certainly be interested in this story, because there are dozens of non latin languages in the EU, and she is not enthusiastic for abusive monopolies. She might even come to a conclusion that a European root would make sense.<br>
- - -<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 09:16, Daniel Kalchev <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:daniel@digsys.bg">daniel@digsys.bg</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div class="im">
<br>
<br>
On 04.11.11 07:38, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">Dear
Friends,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">Context:<u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:rgb(31, 73, 125)">Actually, the visual resemblance of TLD string
had not been studied thoroughly and precisely in early
stages, when the ccTLDs were being allocated with ASCI codes
(Latin Characters). That is why the 18 ccTLD script has
confusing similarity in visual text with each other.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Not exactly...<br>
The reason these strings have "similarity" problems is because,
these strings are listed in an internationally accepted list of
country codes. Those who accepted the list and the "possible
confusion" are way, way larger and more important in this world than
ICANN. In this sense, ICANNs stance on this matter is simply
arrogant.<br>
<br>
The use of existing two letter country codes as ccTLD strings was a
decision made long before ICANN existed and has never been
disqualified. Apparently, such existing similarity, within the same
(ASCII) script has not led to any instability for Internet nor
impacted it's security.<div class="im">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"> However, this kind of study become the focus of
the DNS stability teams when the IDN ccTLDs were being
introduced and they had to exercise their authority for the
refusal, easily say, No. According the Fast Track they do
not have liability and responsible to justify their decision
or recommendations to the public.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
This is correct. The expert panel says: "We were given specific
instructions by ICANN and for this given input, we are supposed to
produce this output". ICANN says: "we did not make this decision. We
gave the application to the stability panel and they said no".<br>
The specific "instructions" are kept secret. I could speculate that
today's ICANN staff may not even know what they were.<div class="im">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">
That is why, confusions are being developed among public and
technical community trust on the transparent decision making
process of the ICANN. Internet recognized by ASCI codes
(Latin Characters) and simply Cyrillic</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11pt;color:rgb(31, 73, 125)">.áã has resemblance with Latin .6r (digit six +
r). I also underact that Bulgarians would not like leave the
abbreviated string by selecting alternatively full name of
the Country in Cyrillic Language script. </span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
It is interesting to note, that digits are not permitted as TLD
names. <br>
<br>
It is also interesting to note, that until recently, everybody was
talking about .áã and .br, now more and more talk about .áã and .6r.<br>
Perhaps because we already pointed out that the UNICODE table of
confusable characters do not list any match for the Latin 'r' and a
Cyrillic character.<div class="im"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">Review
on Requirement Analysis:<u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">Now,
my question is with the Bulgarians Internet Community that
do they really want to go for the cyrillic language script
and feel much benefit out of it by having Cyrillic</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11pt;color:rgb(31, 73, 125)">.áã in parallel to the English .bg then what is
the solution? (because in Korea, the Korean Internet
community do not feel much benefit and advantage to have
domain names with IDN ccTLD with Korean Language). And I
believe that the public and technical communities and ICANN
are unaware with the future (upcoming) prospects and
potential of the failures of IDN TLDs framework. </span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
During my talks with ICANN staff on the subject, I raised the point
that one should look in perspective. In the past, it was viewed that
IDN TLDs should not be similar to ASCII TLDs. However, reality is
that the Latin alphabet on which ASCII is based is actually an
minority alphabet. The use of other alphabets is more significant
and as Internet becomes more and more "internationalized" (which is
rather poor choice of terminology, by the way), ASCII labels will
have less and less importance. What is more, ICANNs own great new
IDN gTLD initiative will spring a lot more IDN new TLDs than ASCII
TLDs.<br>
So at some point things will be actually reversed and ASCII TLD
applications will have to make sure they are not similar with some
other script's characters. Why not Cyrillic... ;-)<br>
<br>
Some background:<br>
I am obviously with the BG ccTLD Registry. As such, in theory I
should, according to some people, have no interest in supporting the
development of an IDN ccTLD for Bulgaria. That is of course
speculation. Cyrillic is deeply involved in the Bulgarian culture --
some even go that far to claim that Bulgaria is the originator of
the Cyrillic script.<br>
Further, the abbreviation "ÁÃ" is how Bulgarians identify the
country in our own language. There was no other Cyrillic
abbreviation in use for that purpose, ever.<br>
<br>
When the IDN Fast Track process started, we initiated a number of
pools in Bulgaria to inquire what the community opinion on the best
IDN ccTLD would be. All previous pools were more or less informal
and it was always 'ÁÃ". These pools were formal this time. I am
aware of three big pools: one done by the BG Registry (you can see
the results on <a href="https://www.register.bg" target="_blank">https://www.register.bg</a>), another done by the
Bulgarian Government and yet another done by the Uninet Association
(who were experimenting at that time with a .áã in alternate root
environment). The pool made by Register.BG was to all BG TLD contact
persons -- therefore anyone who has had anything to do with a BG
domain name. Therefore, we consider it most representative of the
"community opinion" and it is somewhat related to your question. The
pool by the Government wasn't very popular in participation, perhaps
due to the short time frame an d lack of enough publicity. All pools
suggested the prevalent choice being '.áã' and therefore this is why
such application was made.<br>
<br>
Later, when the applicant was informed of the expert panel opinion,
there was a second pool made by the Government, with the special
question "what OTHER string you prefer". The response was
overwhelming, this time with much greater participation. The
prevailing majority of answers were:<br>
<br>
- we want .áã.<br>
- if we are not going to get .áã, we do not want any IDN ccTLD.<br>
<br>
With this public opinion, it is understandable that our Government
are not looking for any other option anymore.<br>
<br>
More specific on your question:<br>
<br>
It was always assumed (at least by Register.BG) that all delegations
under a Cyrillic TLD will be in Cyrillic. This is the whole point to
have a Cyrillic TLD: to be able to type the entire domain name in
Cyrillic. You already can register IDN domain names under the ASCII
BG, such as <a href="http://xn--d1abbgf6aiiy.bg" target="_blank">ïðåçèäåíò.bg</a> (<a href="http://president.bg" target="_blank">president.bg</a>), but these are not extremely
popular, primarily because everyone now knows that you can have
IDN.IDN names and.. sort of wait for this to happen (ICANN to sour
our their internal confusion).<br>
<br>
In respect of the pending application and eventual assignment of
.áã, Register.BG has made a proposal to the Government, that should
both TLDs be handled by the same registry, a form of 'bundling' may
be appropriate, for example if one registers ïðåçèäåíò.áã they get
<a href="http://xn--d1abbgf6aiiy.bg" target="_blank">ïðåçèäåíò.bg</a>, subject to the applicable restrictions under BG of
course: that is, you (at least under current rules) cannot have
<a href="http://xn--j1ahb.bg" target="_blank">îêî.bg</a> (îêî being in Cyrillic).<br>
<br>
It is also interesting to note, that for many years, registries that
have implemented IDN registrations, restrict the possible labels so
that no string confusable labels are possible with (say) Cyrillic
and ASCII characters. But note: this only applies to exact character
match, not to "possibly similarly looking in some font". It is sad
this is not the policy at the root level as well.<div class="im">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">Recommended
Solution:<u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">In
order to resolve this conflict I do not understand that
appealing to ombudsman could resolve the conflict, because
they provisioning allows to refuse. I would recommend that
Internet Community and Internet Governance supporting
organizations should write to the ICANN Board and requesting
them to authorize ccNSO and GNSO with a mandate to develop a
Working Group, and that working groups would address these
issues and to sort out the way to compensate IDN TLDs
applicant’s to promote Internationalized Domain Name System.
And the allocation of the Cyrillic</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">.áã
string may be allowed with the recommendation of that
specific working group to the board of ICANN.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
This has already happened. In a very ICANN-ish way...<br>
<br>
On the San Francisco ICANN meeting, when it became clear that not
only the Bulgarian case is halted, but also the Greek application
and also the EU IDN application in Bulgarian and Greek (Bulgarian
and Greek as well as the Cyrillic and Greek alphabets are official
within the EU and according to the "EU law" are to be fully
supported). Then, a sub-working group was created under IDN ccPDP
WG1 to produce suggestions to ICANN how to handle these cases.<br>
That working group eventually reported at the Dakar ICANN meeting...
on the EU case only, stating in effect (you will excuse my imprecise
citation) "well... we found out that those strings are confusingly
similar, but it appears that they are confusingly similar with one
another (?). We also discussed the matter with EURid (the EU
registry) and agree that as long as they register only Cyrillic
names under the Cyrillic TLD and Greek names under the Greek TLD,
everything is fine. Therefore we recommend that ICANN approves this
application.."<br>
<br>
Double standard? Why the Bulgarian and Greek cases were not
considered?<br>
<br>
Indeed, it may happen that the full IDN ccPDP process will permit
Bulgaria to have .áã at some point in the future. This is somehow
not dependent on ICANN or the 'expert panel' opinions. <br>
<br>
But then the question will remain: How come the .áã TLD was, let me
cite from the 'expert panel' report: <br>
<br>
<img src="" alt=""><br>
<br>
.. and, in the future it will be less confusable?<br>
<br>
Why was then Bulgaria delayed with it's Cyrillic TLD implementation
and why was all this several years long attempt to undermine ICANNs
credibility to the community?<br>
<br>
<br>
Finally, I would like to comment thus:<br>
<br>
If someone (ICANN in this case) is tasked with the heavy
responsibility to make a decision in situation like this,
effectively permitting or not a country's own language/script to be
used and they are to consider the opinion of an expert panel, with
whom they have a contract.. and it is apparent, that this opinion is
accepted by practically no one, then a prudent one (ICANN) will
simply seek the opinion of another expert panel, or two (to make
easier choice). That would resolve any and all doubt. What is more,
ICANN staff is required to do so according to the Fast Track
Implementation Plan.<br>
<br>
There are all kinds of theories and first hand knowledge why all
this has happened.. but let's give ICANN chance to fix this stupid
situation and clear their image, before these things go public.<br><font color="#888888">
<br>
Daniel<br>
</font></div>
</blockquote></div><br>