[governance] new gTLDs for ICBCs of DgEc DdEc - Call for IGC Statement

[Imran Ahmed Shah]

Dear Jeremy
Thanks for your comments, justifications...
Actually time was passing very quickly. 
And I had to submit (at least mine review) comments before the closing time. 
Even, when I had to travel all the night, I tried to complete very quickly. 
So, I am sorry if the initial comments of previous thead are missed.
 
>Also I don't think we can presume to have consensus 
>on everything in your and Salanieta's statements. 
>(Just one example, that shorter gtlds should be cheaper than longer ones... 
>this is actually the reverse of the position in the telephony world, 
>where shorter numbers are more expensive than longer ones.)

This is delight of the theme and lesson learned through hard experience, let me explain;
In term of Commercial Business, higher cost is charged for the attractive names, numbers or abbreviation (I agree and understand), here its a different case; users believe that ICANN is a not-for-profit organization and working to provide ease to the users and suppose to facilitate the Internet System to ensure the stability. Larger name script  will have bad impact on the Internet System (with every aspects, storage, traffic and keywords typing etc), in other words Extra Burden. So, it should become a policy of ICANN to encourage applicants to use shorter name script and such applicant should be provided some incentive, like reduction of fee.

Hard experience: When there was a limitation of two letters for IDN ccTLD, I tried my level best to convince ICANN staff to remove this limitation for a meaningful name script. Finally, when it was approved, my own country applied for a larger name script .pakistan comparing to .pak (in Urdu language).
The nation and next generation will have to keep typing extra 4 letters to browse every domain name, servers will take extra bytes to store domain names in email correspondence and the internet traffic will also have its -ive impacts. Public opinion does not matter for those policy makers and advisers who provide backup to bureaucrats. I have pointed out this matter to the ICANN Board, in Public Forum at Seoul meeting but they again referred to local govt. Can we knock the door of Consumer International for the sake of the benefit of nation? 

So, at least we can propose the ICANN to provide compensation on the selection of shorter name script for new gTLDs both for Developing or Developed economies.

I hope that the comments which are not opposed by them IGC-CS members, should be approved to include in the IGC statement for Public Comments.

Thanking you and Best Regards

Imran Ahmed Shah

On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 06:02 PKT Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

>On 30/07/2011, at 3:28 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote:
>
>> Coordinator’s’ comments were still awaited, also I was looking their cooperation to submit the following comments on behalf of IGC-CS by themselves.
>> As the time lines are closing for comments, I had to submit the comments, which I did now.
>> However, I have requested them to extend the closing date for one week, if it is allowed, I would request the coordinators, to please help us.
>
>Sorry, this slipped by me, since there was no response to this thread between 2 July and yesterday, and yesterday when the thread was reactivated I was unavailable.  But thanks to you and Salanieta for not letting the ball drop and putting in your own personal submissions on time.
>
>As for extending the deadline by a week and putting in an IGC submission, even if the deadline was extended, unless we quickly hear from some more people on the list it will still be difficult to formulate a statement on this, since we would only have a couple of days to do so before needing to do a consensus call.
>
>Also I don't think we can presume to have consensus on everything in your and Salanieta's statements.  (Just one example, that shorter gtlds should be cheaper than longer ones... this is actually the reverse of the position in the telephony world, where shorter numbers are more expensive than longer ones.)
>
>Does anyone who has expertise in this area feel that they can go through Imran's and Salanieta's statements and pull out the points on which we think there is a broad civil society consensus, which could quickly form the basis of an IGC statement if the deadline is extended?  If not I can try but this is not my core area.
>
>-- 
>Dr Jeremy Malcolm
>Project Coordinator
>Consumers International
>Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
>Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
>Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
>Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. 
>www.consumersinternational.org
>Twitter @Consumers_Int
>
>Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

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