<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<div>Hi,</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>Part of today's conversation involves a discussion on whether we </div><div>are ready to vote on our recommendations at our next meeting. During</div><div>the LA meeting, I pretty much kept my viewpoints out of the discussion </div><div>because I was concerned with accurately reflecting the state of discussion</div><div>in the council. At this point I would like to add my personal opinions to the </div><div>discussion.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>I am uncomfortable with many of the proposals we are making and </div><div>decided I should send in a note prior to the meeting on some of the issues</div><div>that most concern me.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>In general I believe our answers give the governments and the ccNSO</div><div>a unconstrained slate on which they can designate as many names as they wish</div><div>as being in ccTLD space.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>From various conversations I have been involved in, this could come to mean</div><div>something as broad as:</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>- every possible name of a country or territory's name </div><div>- in every possible script/ language</div><div>- including all possible variants</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>We have also heard discussions that indicate that if one country needs a certain</div><div>number of ccTLDs, then obviously, for the sake of fairness, every country needs</div><div>the same number. </div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>As it currently stands, I cannot vote to approve our current statement.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>Some of my specific issues:</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" style="font: 10.0px Times New Roman"><i>b) Could there be several IDN strings for a ‘territory’ in a script? If so, who would </i></font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" style="font: 10.0px Times New Roman"><i>determine the number and what are the criteria?</i> </font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" style="font: 10.0px Times New Roman"> </font><br class="khtml-block-placeholder"></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" style="font: 10.0px Times New Roman">Proposed GNSO response: If multiple scripts are used in a territory and if it is </font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" style="font: 10.0px Times New Roman">judged that those scripts will add value to the user experience, then the sovereign </font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" style="font: 10.0px Times New Roman">government should make the choice of which scripts and what number of scripts </font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" style="font: 10.0px Times New Roman">will be in use for IDN ccTLDs. </font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="'Times New Roman'" size="2"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 10px;"><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></span></font></div></blockquote><br></div><div>I am not sure that we actually answered the question in this one.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>I do not read the question as asking about multiple scripts, but rather</div><div>read it as asking about multiple names in a single script.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>I think that this would be problematic, as this would give license for a</div><div>multitude of names might be in general use for a territory or country.</div><div>E.g in the US, we have US, USA, UnitedStates, UnitedStatesofAmerica,</div><div>TheStates, America, LandoftheFreeHomeoftheBrave etc... </div><div>Should all of these be designated as ccTLDs.</div><div>and should they all be designated in all scripts/languages that are used, </div><div>and even only those officially designated in at least one of the states, </div><div>in the US?</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>If we extrapolate this for all countries/territories, all variants and all </div><div>scripts/languages, we will find that a very large chunk of the name </div><div>spaces been being assigned to the ccNSO and to</div><div>government control.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>Is this something the GNSO is comfortable with?</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" style="font: 10.0px Times New Roman"><b><i>Should a list of IDN ccTLD strings be mandated?</i></b> </font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" style="font: 10.0px Times New Roman"><i> </i></font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" style="font: 10.0px Times New Roman"><i>In the US-ASCII case, ccTLD strings are currently primfarily based on the ISO 3166-1 </i></font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" style="font: 10.0px Times New Roman"><i>Alpha 2 list. If a similar mechanism were adopted for IDN ccTLDs, this could mean that </i></font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" style="font: 10.0px Times New Roman"><i>every ISO 3166 entry would have an equivalent IDN ccTLD string(s) to represent it.</i> </font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" style="font: 10.0px Times New Roman"> </font><br class="khtml-block-placeholder"></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" style="font: 10.0px Times New Roman"><i>a) Is such a list necessary?</i> </font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" style="font: 10.0px Times New Roman"> </font><br class="khtml-block-placeholder"></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" style="font: 10.0px Times New Roman">Proposed GNSO response: Probably not. Would such a list result in an earlier </font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" style="font: 10.0px Times New Roman">ability to meet the needs of non-English users? If so, it would seem to be a good </font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" style="font: 10.0px Times New Roman">idea. If not, then it seems like the higher priority should be to meet user needs </font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" style="font: 10.0px Times New Roman">and, if that can be done without a list, that might be the better approach. If the list </font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" style="font: 10.0px Times New Roman">avoided conflicts and confusion, it might be needed (e.g., in situations where </font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" style="font: 10.0px Times New Roman">there are reports of conflicts and confusion among ccTLD members themselves </font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" style="font: 10.0px Times New Roman">or where there are reports of such conflicts and confusion from traditional </font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" style="font: 10.0px Times New Roman">standards bodies like the ISO). </font></div></blockquote><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div>As was shown in the conversation we had in LA, the lack of a list, may mean that</div><div>an implicit definition will be used that may open up the possibility of an indefinitely</div><div>large number of potential names being designated as ccTLD space.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>Is this something the GNSO is comfortable with?</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" style="font: 10.0px Times New Roman"><i>e) Who would develop the criteria and relevant policies for identifying IDN ccTLDs?</i> </font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" style="font: 10.0px Times New Roman"> </font><br class="khtml-block-placeholder"></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" style="font: 10.0px Times New Roman">Proposed GNSO response: The ccNSO is the policy making body for ccTLDs. It </font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" style="font: 10.0px Times New Roman">seems like the appropriate body for this task with appropriate input from the </font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" style="font: 10.0px Times New Roman">broader community within ICANN and with input from the abovementioned </font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" style="font: 10.0px Times New Roman">non-ICANN entities to establish the legitimacy of the process and the outcome. </font></div></blockquote><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div>I read this as saying that the GSNO agrees that deciding whether a string belongs in </div><div>ccTLD space is a decision that is made by the ccNSO.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>Without pre-established constraints, there is no limit to what might be deemed an </div><div>appropriate IDN ccTLD.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>I don't see how we can agree to a formulation that is this open.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>a.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div></body></html>