Recent Posts
- auDA chair defends $9 million windfall as no-confidence vote looms
- Swiss registry gets more traffic than Google, kinda
- Pritz to be named chair of Whois group
- Donuts confirms six-figure .news buyer used a fake name
- KeyDrive reverses into CentralNic in $55 million deal
- .pharmacy TLD faces action after losing complaint over Canadian drug peddler
- Donuts makes six-figure .news sale to dangerous conspiracy theorist
- MMX gets four more gTLDs approved for China use
- Four more dot-brands call it quits
- Plural gTLDs to be banned over confusion concerns
- Digital archery ruled out for next new gTLD round
- Could crypto solve the Whois crisis?
- Euro-Whois advice still as clear as mud
- New gTLD fees could be kept artificially high
- First-come, first-served for new gTLDs? Have your say
- Fight breaks out as Afilias eats Neustar’s Aussie baby
- .kids gTLD auction probably back on
- Archaeologists protest “televangelist” .bible gTLD
- .co first ccTLD to get China approval
- All Cyrillic .eu domains to be deleted
- ICANN heads to Cancun for Spring Break boondoggle
- GoDaddy signs up for basically unrestricted .travel gTLD
- Biggest TLD handover in history happens this weekend
- Web.com to be acquired for $2 billion
- Has the world’s biggest new gTLD registry gone bankrupt?
- $44 billion company is latest deadbeat gTLD registry
- How ICANN thinks YOU could get full Whois access
- After ICANN nod, MMX buys .xxx
- Donuts buys back .fan, ignores plural .fans
- Domainers could lose their names as .au loophole closes
- In GDPR case, ICANN ready to fight Tucows to the bitter end
- Three-letter .net leads as NamesCon charity auction raises €4,150 for Kenyan school
- Atallah encourages domainers to get involved in ICANN
- US asks if it should take back control over ICANN
- Christians rail against GoDaddy’s six-color gay rights flag
- Can’t get enough GDPR? Come to my NamesCon panel
- Court denies ICANN’s GDPR injunction against Tucows
- Million-euro Tucows GDPR lawsuit may not be ICANN’s last
- How all 33 European ccTLDs are handling GDPR
- After outcry, ICANNWiki to get ICANN funding next year
- ICANN slashes new gTLD income forecast AGAIN
- Sedo’s cunning GDPR workaround
- ICANN board talking GDPR “litigation”
- Failure to launch: 10 years-old gTLDs that are still dormant
- EnCirca partners with PandoraBots to push .bot names to brands
- Donuts freezes .place gTLD ahead of new geofencing rules
- Registrars want six-month stay on new Whois policy
- Lauded domainer arrested over $2.4 million “extortion”
- Domainers not welcome in this Whois database
- ICANN approves messy, unfinished Whois policy
PIR goes live with three non-Latin .org gTLDs
The internet has its first IDN versions of legacy gTLDs.
Public Interest Registry had three new gTLDs delegated over the weekend, all non-Latin versions of its flagship .org.
The gTLDs were .संगठन, which means “organization” in Hindi, and the Chinese .机构 and .组织机构, which seem to be two ways of saying “organization” too.
They’re not strictly speaking transliterations, as they represent whole dictionary words conceptually related to .org, rather than trying to approximate the spoken sound of “org”.
The .com equivalents Verisign has applied for in other scripts are actually meant to sound the same as “com” without actually meaning “commercial” or “company” in their language.
Because PIR has taken a different approach, there’s no grandfathering for existing .org registrants.
These three new gTLDs will be unrestricted, according to PIR’s applications, but will have slightly stricter rules on abuse — no porn will be allowed, for example.
“Because PIR has taken a different approach, there’s no grandfathering for existing .org registrants.”
Is there a source for this bit of info ?
Thx
There’s no mention of grandfathering in the applications.
There wasn’t in VRSN’s either. 😉
Hindi has never been allowed in 2nd level .org, thus there is nothing to grandfather for संगठन.
For the Chinese TLDs however, PIR should publicly comment on the question.
Errr. The Verisign application DO mention existing registrants.
They’re not the first, .OPR (xn--c1avg) beat them by 4 days.
And to be REALLY pedantic, I don’t think you can call them “IDN versions of Legacy TLD’s” if the IDN registrants in .org are being chucked under a bus by PIR.
Legacy implies inheritance. PIR’s existing registrant base didn’t inherit anything, other than a good rogering.
You’re right about .OPR. My software caught it when it was delegated but my brain didn’t.
No comment on your second point.
According to my information the upcoming launches from PIR are .орг, .机构, .संगठन – the Cyrillic, Chinese 2-character, and Hindi versions of .org. But I have not found any info on a TLD .组织机构. I am only a beginner in Chinese and also struggling but it seems you got mixed up with the Chinese 4-character version of .org which is 机构体制 and which to my info has not been announced yet. Hope this helps.
Hi Lutz,
Both .机构 (xn--nqv7f) and .组织机构 (xn--nqv7fs00ema) were delegated on 20140309
My Chinese is non-existent, but I’m referring to this:
https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/applicationdetails/1762
The Chinese string there is 组织机构, which is what I used in this post. I’ve searched ICANN’s web site for 机构体制 and couldn’t find any applications.
Have I misunderstood what you’re saying?
Hi Drewbert, hi Kevin,
I know that both Chinese strings from PIR were delegated. But in the communication to the registrars PIR only announced the upcoming launch for the two character string in Chinese (plus the Cyrillic and Hindi version) with a probable sunrise (unconfirmed) in the coming weeks. PIR did not mention an upcoming launch of the 4-character string in Chinese even though it was delegated. I should have been clearer in my language.
And, Kevin, indeed your 4 characters in Chinese were definitely the right ones. Sorry for the confusion. Like I said – I am only a beginner in Chinese.
I am not a language expert but it is possible org in Cyrillic is both a translation and transliteration.
.org – Organization
.орг – Организация (Organization)
RegistrantA now owns Россия.org and RegistrantB will own Россия.орг
Both sound identical.
I thought ICANN did not permit aural confusion.
agb 2.2.1.1.3:
“Such category of objection is not limited to
visual similarity. Rather, confusion based on any type of
similarity (including visual, aural, or similarity of meaning)”
Only PIR itself had standing to file string confusion objection. That was one of the AGB design flaws: registrants, perhaps thru the Independent Objector or ALAC, should have standing if the same registry is proposing a confusingly similar TLD.