[governance] Is really Bulgarian Cyrillic .бг (.bg) similar to other Latin ccTLDs?

[Lee W McKnight]

This discussion highlights yet again how ICANN undermines itself by having to defend decisions made without transparent and objective procedures in place.

I personally don't see how this decision does not get reversed, since the core issue seems to be the visual acuity of one or members of the DNS Stability Council, and/or ICANN staff who don't speak or read Bulgarian.  

Who I guess are not the target market.

The staff/consultants problems are however more easily fixed than yet another non-transparent ICANN process.

Lee
________________________________________
From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU [aizu at anr.org]
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 9:26 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos A. Afonso
Cc: Daniel Kalchev
Subject: Re: [governance] Is really Bulgarian Cyrillic .бг (.bg) similar to other Latin ccTLDs?

Being an ex-ALAC member and still engaged as one of ALSs of AtLarge,
I also question why ".бг" is not acceptable as IDN ccTLD for Bulgaria.
EVEN if non-Bulgaria people like myself does not understand, at the onset
at least, what it means, many will have similar problem with ”中国", "中國",
"台湾", "臺湾" etc, who cannot read Chinese characters. But those who
do understand what ".бг" are the targeted users and that is, in my view,
perfectly understandable. By introducing IDNs, we will face the expanded
diversity, and for us it's a good thing to learn, not to worry about.

As someone already pointed out, IF there already exists ".6b", then
the story can be different. But that is not the case.

I also think the decision by the part of ICANN is, in a larger view, ICANN's
decision, if not the final one. Especially the DNS stability panel is authorized
for their work by ICANN Board, and there is no appeal process there.

This is not as coordinator, but purely speaking for myself.

izumi


2010/12/1 Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca>:
> Dear people,
>
> Writing in my personal capacity and *not* as a member of CGI.br, I agree
> with Avri that the decision making processes within Icann are frequently
> questionable, and I defend the right of Bulgaria to choose the IDN ".бг" for
> their ccTLD, on the additional grounds that the it is not a case comparable
> to the "py" one, notwithstanding the visual acuity of users.
>
> fraternal regards
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 12/01/2010 11:47 AM, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
>>
>> On 01.12.10 15:32, McTim wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Avri Doria<avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 1 Dec 2010, at 08:02, McTim wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ICANN itself didn't make this decision did it, they have a DNS
>>>> Stability Panel for that, no?
>>>>
>>>> And how is that not ICANN making the decision?
>>>
>>> I was referring to the fact that it wasn't ICANN staff making the
>>> decision.
>>>
>>
>> The process is such, that ICANN staff has made decision that they will
>> not continue the Bulgarian application evaluation, because their
>> subcontractor, the DNS Stability Panel (who are pretty much anonymous,
>> by the way -- very much unacceptable for such task) has indicated there
>> MAY be confusion.
>>
>>>> Just because ICANN outsources part of the work to a few experts does
>>>> not remove the responsibility from ICANN and its staffboard.
>>>>
>>>> But one of the huge deficiencies in the new TLD processes, both g and
>>>> cc fast track, is that there is no appeal from some of these
>>>> outsourced entities. But by ICANN process every decisions is
>>>> eventually approved by the Board, so at the end of the day, one can
>>>> probably ask for reconsideration once the Board approves or denies
>>>> something it shouldn't.
>>>
>>> It would have to be a pretty compelling argument to make the Board
>>> reverse the DNS Stability Panel.
>>>
>>> I don't see it in this case, but could be wrong.
>>>
>> This issue ceased to be technical, at the moment when the ICANN staff
>> has decided to act this way. The issue with the Bulgarian application is
>> already pretty much political and is getting more and more attention,
>> because the approach is simply wrong (this merits separate discussion,
>> in fact, related to the Internet Governance issues).
>>
>> Even more absurd is that, the ICANN board has never ever made their
>> opinion on this case public. There is no decision of the ICANN board on
>> this case, so there is no formal grounds for appeal.
>>
>> It is expected that the applicant for the Bulgarian IDN, which happens
>> to be the Bulgarian Government will give up. This makes things even more
>> political in very undesirable for ICANN ways. By the way, the Bulgarian
>> Government was almost successfully confused to think they are the party
>> doing wrong, but consultation with various parties and repeated public
>> pools indicated this is not the case.
>>
>> Daniel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t