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

[Carlos A. Afonso]

Hi Norbert, I agree mostly anything (except perhaps formal binding
contracts) can be overridden, but I see no signs of a proposal which
would convince Icann to change decisions already made.

E.g, how about proposing that cyrillic ccTLDs have three instead of two
chars, using ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 instead of alpha-2? Anathema, great,
whatever, but were are the concrete proposals on the table? This is why
I posed the question with my implicit view that this might not change if
concrete, sound proposals are not submitted and enable consensus.

--c.a.

On 11/02/2011 11:51 PM, nhklein wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I am happy that his issue comes now up here. As you know following the
> thread back, it is an old issue, but when the conflict arose, not many
> people got involved - and the Bulgarian applicant was in a way left
> alone (there is no clear, appropriate ICANN appeal process, as far as I
> know).
> 
> The ophthalmologic discussion is maybe interesting - or tragic-funny,
> but what is needed is to go beyond: the issue is not settled! A
> technically powerful body in ICANN can decide and override the broadly
> based decision of the Bulgarian people concerned and involved in an IDN
> problem.
> 
> How can this be brought to a solution? GNSO? Who can take a
> "procedurally correct and efficient" initiative? And if possible soon -
> as it has been dragging on already very long.
> 
> 
> Norbert Klein
> (a resident in the Bulgarian Embassy Apartment in Phnom Penh/Cambodia)
> 
> = =
> 
> 
> On 11/03/2011 02:35 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>> I posed a question... :)
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> On 11/02/2011 02:29 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> Carlos:
>>>
>>> What issue is settled?
>>>
>>> IANA certainly made a decision in favor of Brazil and to the
>>> detriment of Bulgaria.
>>> But I do not see how that settles anything.
>>>
>>> Given the unknown and seemingly ridiculous basis of the decision,
>>> what it opens up is the discussion of how this can remediated and how
>>> the process can be fixed to keep more of these decisions from being
>>> made badly.  At the least there needs to be a transparent decision
>>> process and a clear appeals mechanism.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2 Nov 2011, at 07:44, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>>>
>>>> Isn't this ophtalmologic discussion a bit outdated, since it seems the
>>>> rules are already settled on the issue (for good, bad or worse)?
>>>>
>>>> frt rgds
>>>>
>>>> --c.a.
>>>>
> 
____________________________________________________________
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