State of IDN gTLD

[quest]

At T.R.A.F.F.I.C. Tina Dam, Senior Director of IDNs at ICANN spoke on gTLDs in general and on IDN gTLDs. She noted yesterday’s success with 4 .IDN ccTLDs moving forward in the Fast Track process.
When asked about whether there will be a Fast Track gTLD process, Tina said that it has been discussed at length but she doesn’t see it happening.
So what does this mean for non-latin gTLDs? She did not say if she does not see it happening in the near future or at all. In any case, ccTLDs in Russian, Arabic, Chinese markets will have a big head start, this is more or less clear by now. Besides, I personally don't even see the need for aliasing of existing com/net idn.ascii to idn.idn. Russian, Chinese and arabs will do perfectly well with their ccTLD or may be another Idn.idn gTLD besides com/net. I understand the desire of people who hold large portfolios of those to have it their way but this is probably the last reason ICANN will take into consideration.
On the other hand, latin gTLD (Spanish, French etc) has proven to be a safe bet since they do not require any fast track or alising (if this ever going to happen to non-latins at all). They are already functional, do not need aliasing since com/net/org etc in latins is com/net/org and inclusion of Spanish gTLD domain TarjetasDeCrédito.com (Credit Cards) into Traffic auction proves that domaining community sees these as already having investment value. As far as non-latins, time will show. So far, the situation with them is still unclear at best - and market does not like uncertainty.
So far the approach of Icann seems logical. It is need based. With Latin idn gTLD it is making already existing domains work 100% with correct orthography. With ccTLD is to allow countries to have their respective extensions in their languages.
The motive for com/net idn.ascii>idn.idn is very weak, not need based and purely speculative. This is why I don't see it as ICANN priority even if it's possible technically.

 

[Phio]

This is exactly other way around, according to verisign (Gomes), as I understand. Not aliasing. They want not aliasing but "right assignment" i.e. every owner of .com will have a right to register "equivalent" of it in say, .ком (and pay up for it registration). This is, of course if verisign gets .ком. As far as ICANN, they would have to come up with a lot of new gTLDs for that. They can't just come up with only .ком - it would have to be all languages at once. Besides, ICANN is probably straggling with it- this is way too preferential for verisign.

Actually IDNgtlds are the only ones that make sense, except maybe .food

IDNgtlds really need to be split off from the regular new gtld process and be allowed to start sooner, rather than later.

IDNgtlds will help promote commerce throughout the world in a global manner. With billions not knowing how to write english, this will be a boom for the internet. Perhaps the thing we are looking for to stimulate the economy. The department of commerce really needs to take note, and push ICANN to split the release of between asciiGtlds and IDNGtlds to enable the IDNGtlds to go in very quickly. It makes much more sense to the world market and to the expansion of the global internet. Remember that IDNcctlds are more limiting (more restrictions) and IDNGtlds have a much broader appeal. And of course, .com and .net in any IDN language will be a plus for marketing and broadening sales and increasing revenue streams.

 

[yanni]

This is exactly other way around, according to verisign (Gomes), as I understand. Not aliasing. They want not aliasing but "right assignment" i.e. every owner of .com will have a right to register "equivalent" of it in say, .ком (and pay up for it registration). This is, of course if verisign gets .ком. As far as ICANN, they would have to come up with a lot of new gTLDs for that. They can't just come up with only .ком - it would have to be all languages at once. Besides, ICANN is probably straggling with it- this is way too preferential for verisign.

You can call it any way you want; at the end of the day if .ком is awarded, it will go to Verisign. We know what Verisign wants to do with it.

No-one said that they will only come up with .ком. It was used as an example.

COM is a brand. Just as Microsoft will be awarded their brand in any script they want, so will Verisign [or whomever is handling .com at the time]. It has nothing to do with preferential treatment.

 

[quest]

You can call it any way you want; at the end of the day if .ком is awarded, it will go to Verisign. We know what Verisign wants to do with it.

No-one said that they will only come up with .ком. It was used as an example.

COM is a brand. Just as Microsoft will be awarded their brand in any script they want, so will Verisign [or whomever is handling .com at the time]. It has nothing to do with preferential treatment.

I am not calling it any way I want. I am calling it the way it is. This is not aliasing. It's extremely profitable scheme for verisign and this represents a problem for ICANN because there is no real pressing need to create all these new extensions apart from a questionable "brand indispensable for global trade" theory. Besides, how they will be created and what would be the process? ICANN is a budget organization and creating multiple domains which are not really needed will raise few eyebrows and require long consultations with all local parties. And then what? Then .org/info/biz? Why not?
ICANN is risking to open a pandora box for themselves.

 

[Phio]

I am not calling it any way I want. I am calling it the way it is. This is not aliasing. It's extremely profitable scheme for verisign and this represents a problem for ICANN because there is no real pressing need to create all these new extensions apart from a questionable "brand indispensable for global trade" theory. Besides, how they will be created and what would be the process? ICANN is a budget organization and creating multiple domains which are not really needed will raise few eyebrows and require long consultations with all local parties. And then what? Then .org/info/biz? Why not?
ICANN is risking to open a pandora box for themselves.

Actually they are needed especially for Arabic, Cyrillic, and Chinese languages which spread across multiple countries. If one takes the time to see it from this perspective, it becomes a simple way to open up the internet globally. It will give an American or Swedish company, the ability to own and develop a Chinese or Arabic website, and markit to those billion or so people who don't read or write in English. The American or Swedish company can use the global transliterated version of .com and create a website that is easy to use and remember. There really is no other alternative, and perhaps the best way for corporations to market to the 'next billion' users on the internet. Try to look at it as a positive thing -- because it really is a positive thing.

 

[quest]

Look, you are advocating all these nice theories of "need" for .com (especially .com ) because you have registered few idn.ascii in those languages. This is the only reason you think .com is an asset.
This is not enough for ICANN. ICANN has other priorities than enrich verisign or few idn.ascii "investors". They are doing what is actually needed-ccTLDs so people who speak other languages can use them online. Creating hundreeds of new idn gTLDs (and this what you are talking about) to give people in other countries the questional priviledge of being able to use versions of ascii gTLDs does not make sense.
All I hear is that "it would be nice" , "it would help trade" etc. Yes, it would not hurt, probably. But the real life scenario is going to be different, imho. Insteado of creating hundreeds of equivalents of .com/net/org/info/biz etc, why not create a symbol (or numeric) extension for international trade? That every country could use? Would it not be cost effective, easier and make more sense?
In any case, ICANN is not even considering idn.ascii at this moment and focus on ccTLDs.
So this is what is going to work as we KNOW now- ccTLDs and Idn.IDN (the ones that already exist-latins). The rest is never going to happen- this is my opinion based on the analysis of objective need and ICANN' capabilities and limitations.

 

[Phio]

Here's some stats:

http://royal.pingdom.com/2010/01/22/internet-2009-in-numbers/

 

[yanni]

Look, you are advocating all these nice theories of "need" for .com (especially .com ) because you have registered few idn.ascii in those languages. This is the only reason you think .com is an asset.
This is not enough for ICANN. ICANN has other priorities than enrich verisign or few idn.ascii "investors". They are doing what is actually needed-ccTLDs so people who speak other languages can use them online. Creating hundreeds of new idn gTLDs (and this what you are talking about) to give people in other countries the questional priviledge of being able to use versions of ascii gTLDs does not make sense.
All I hear is that "it would be nice" , "it would help trade" etc. Yes, it would not hurt, probably. But the real life scenario is going to be different, imho. Insteado of creating hundreeds of equivalents of .com/net/org/info/biz etc, why not create a symbol (or numeric) extension for international trade? That every country could use? Would it not be cost effective, easier and make more sense?
In any case, ICANN is not even considering idn.ascii at this moment and focus on ccTLDs.
So this is what is going to work as we KNOW now- ccTLDs and Idn.IDN (the ones that already exist-latins). The rest is never going to happen- this is my opinion based on the analysis of objective need and ICANN' capabilities and limitations.

What you need to realize is that new gtlds [including idn gtlds] are going to happen. It's just a matter of when. The expected Fast Track for the new gtlds is what is delayed for now, and that's what Tina Dam is referring to on the quote you posted on your opening post.

The fact is that there is an application process for interested parties and an evaluation period after which the gtld will be awarded [if it passes the process]. The application fee is 184,000 USD [non-refundable]. Does that answer your question in regards to the cost-effectiveness of the program?

You may want to do a bit of reading on how far this program has progressed.
Here's a quick video to help you out. If you're too busy just watch at 56 seconds into the video.

As for the technical aspect; aliasing, mapping, DNAME, whatever. Can be done at the registry level with a simple file, or so I'm told.

So, to recap, new gtlds -including idn gtlds- are on the way. The IDN gtld Fast Track process is ATM uknown. [ ICANN was prompted to have both IDN cctld and IDN gtld introduced close to each other as to not give advantage to one over the other ].

Application fee for each new tld is 184K, so it costs ICANN zero.

From ICANN new gtld draft
New gTLD “Strings must not be confusingly similar to an existing top-level domain or a Reserved Name.“

ICANN is using this tool to assess similarity between two strings [to help prospective new gtld applicants assess their proposed gtld.

Since I used ком in a previous post, go plug it in and see what it comes up with.

Wishful thinking? You be the judge.

 

[yanni]

Here's an educational video for anyone who cares. Start from minute 45 if you're too busy. [thanks to Phio for bringing it up on another board]


@quest. It's not proper to talk with your mouth full.

.

 

[quest]

@yanni. Save your lessons for your house pets.