<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>IDN ccTLD Fast Track implementation plan council comments</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16788" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=280475523-02012009>Edmon,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=280475523-02012009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=280475523-02012009>Good job. I have just two
comments:</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<OL dir=ltr>
<LI>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=280475523-02012009>It seems to me that "<SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><FONT
color=#000000>Compliance with consensus policies.</FONT></SPAN>" is not a very
good heading for item 4, dealing with security & stability. Would
this be better: "Ensuring security and stability'?</SPAN></FONT></DIV></LI>
<LI>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=280475523-02012009>Is item 5 really a concern in the fast tract if the
IDN ccTLD fast track names are restricted to country names as defined by
the IDNC? It seems to me that it might not
be.</SPAN></FONT></DIV></LI></OL>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=280475523-02012009>Chuck</SPAN></FONT></DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> Edmon Chung [mailto:edmon@registry.asia]
<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, January 02, 2009 12:35 AM<BR><B>To:</B>
gnso-idnc-initial@icann.org; 'Council GNSO'<BR><B>Subject:</B> IDN ccTLD Fast
Track implementation plan council comments<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV><!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT size=2>Hi Everyone,</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=2>Apologies for the delay on this matter, please find attached
the draft for the council comments on the Draft IDN ccTLD Fast Track
implementation plan.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>The document is mainly separated into 2 parts:</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>(A) response on Module 7, where 5 open questions were
raised</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>(B) reemphasizing some of the issues raised
previously</FONT> </P><BR>
<P><FONT size=2>For (A) the 5 open questions listed in Module 7 were:</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>1. Ensuring ongoing compliance with the IDN technical
standards, including the IDNA protocol and the IDN Guidelines.</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>2. Possible establishment of financial contributions.</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>3. IDN ccTLD operator association to the ICANN
community.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>4. Compliance with consensus
policies</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>5. Prevention of contention issues with
existing TLDs and those under application in the gTLD process.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=2>The draft mainly extracted statements from previous documents
to respond to the topics, but have also emphasized that we may require much
broader input from the community on the issues because they are largely new
considerations not specifically discussed previously. In particular, 3
& 4, and some respects 2 & 5.</FONT></P><BR>
<P><FONT size=2>For (B) 3 items were specifically reemphasized:</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>1. Lack of structure for implementation in the situation
where a proposed Fast Track IDN ccTLD string is not listed in the UNGEGN
manual (i.e. not in a particular authoritative list)</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>2. Lack of clarity in the process for linguistic process check
and confirmation of a requested string</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>3. Lack of
consideration for avoiding confusingly similar strings</FONT> </P><BR>
<P><FONT size=2>Comments/thoughts welcome.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=2>Since, the deadline for comments to the draft implementation
plan is Jan 9, in view of time, perhaps we can have a discussion on the
council list and on our meeting on Jan 8 to finalize our response.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>Edmon</FONT> </P><BR>
<P><FONT size=2>PS. Happy New Year! :-)</FONT>
</P><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>