[IDN-WG] ALAC Response to the VIP Proposed Project Plan and Next Steps

Fri Apr 13 01:25:04 UTC 2012

*Dear All,*
*
*
*congratulations Rinalia on your fine draft. I've added some comments on
the Confluence page.*
*
*
*Best regards,*
*Jean-Jacques.
*

Le 13 avril 2012 04:27, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com> a écrit :

> I support these points Olivier...  Rinalia you asked me specifically  if
> more (in addition to the Chinese ) case needs to be made...  My view is to
> NOT pick out any cases rather to be generic and approach "them all" with a
> look to who is 'ready' approach ...BUT if ALAC did highlight cases I'd use
> all the "brush scripts" or CJK's
>
> >From my Android Tablet...
>
> Cheryl  Langdon-Orr (CLO)
> tweeter clo3
> http://about.me/cheryl.Langdon-Orr
> www.langdon-orr. name
>  On Apr 11, 2012 8:14 PM, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl at gih.com> wrote:
>
> >  Thank you very much for this follow-up Rinalia.
> >
> > I would just add a couple of notes which I have also recognized on the
> > call:
> > - the ALAC's concerns regarding following a standard path vs. looking at
> > each variant case in turn appear to be already taken into account
> according
> > to some of the comments made by Dennis Jennings. So it appears that each
> > variant type will be studied separately, along with its own timeline,
> > rather than a one-size-fits-all scenario
> > - the point of timing issues which the ALAC is concerned with, appears to
> > have already been echoed by other commenters and to be taken into
> account,
> > with an amended time-line which would bring forth some of the segments
> > allocated to 2013, to an earlier start.
> >
> > I personally find the matters of pointing out communities readiness to
> > implement IDN variant very important indeed. It is one thing to approach
> > such implementation in a top-down manner, but another to allow for
> > communities desiring to work on their variants, to be pro-actively able
> to
> > engage ICANN in rolling out IDN variants for their script. Thanks for
> > pointing this out, it's an excellent point.
> >
> > Thanks for your draft which we can work on, in an accelerated procedure.
> > May I suggest that comments/discussion takes place according to the
> > following schedule:
> >
> > *Call for comments closing time*: Wednesday 18 April 2012 @ 23:59 UTC --
> > that gives it 1 week from today. If this group reaches consensus before
> > this deadline, all the better & the statement can be submitted
> > *Statement to be submitted*:  Friday 20 April 2012
> > *ALAC Vote starts*: Friday 20 April at 20:00 UTC and ends on 27 April @
> > 23:59 UTC
> > *Vote reminder on*: 25 April @ 0:00 UTC
> >
> > So the clock is ticking.
> >
> > I have also made a copy of your draft & added it to the relevant Wiki
> > policy development page. (and also updated the new start/end date for the
> > public comment)
> > This is on: https://community.icann.org/x/jp-bAQ
> >
> > In order to have a way to track things, may WG members (and any other
> > commenters) use the Wiki's "comment" feature, please?
> > As a reminder, if you do not have a log-in for the WIKI, please ask one
> > from staff at atlarge.icann.org . In the meantime, you may also comment
> > without logging in -- just you identify yourself in your response so as
> for
> > it to become a comment from more than an anonymous user.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Olivier
> >
> > On 11/04/2012 10:25, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote :
> >
> > Dear IDN WG,
> >
> > We had a webinar today where the VIP Team re-presented their work.  It
> was
> > a pity that many of our WG members could not participate.  *They made one
> > point of clarification regarding the treatment of communities who
> consider
> > themselves ready to implement IDN Variants - that it would only happen
> > after the label generation toolset work is done.   In their project plan
> > this can only begin mid of FY13. *
> >
> > ALAC is requested to make its response/comment to the proposed plan
> before
> > the end of next week so that the VIP Team can incorporate our input in
> > their next steps.
> >
> > Below is my draft attempt at a response (based on my limited
> > understanding) so that we can meet this deadline.  Note: I draw heavily
> > from Edmon's previous drafts before and after Costa Rica, with tweaks and
> > adjustments based on the clarification made during today's webinar.
> >
> > Gaps:
> > 1. The issue on COST requires more content and justification - Tijani,
> > perhaps you have some ideas.  Otherwise, we might have to drop this
> > aspect.
> > 2. Would be good if reference to communities who are ready to implement
> > IDN Variants could be expanded beyond the Chinese case if they are
> > available - Cheryl, any thoughts?
> >
> > Next Steps:
> > 1. Staff - pls upload to a wikipage.
> > 2. Edmon - pls check overall content.
> > 3. Other WG members - please contribute.
> >
> > Note: I have not proofread this draft.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Rinalia
> >
> > [Draft] ALAC Response to the VIP Proposed Project Plan for Next Steps
> >
> >
> >
> > *Acknowledgement of VIP Team Achievement*
> >
> > The ALAC congratulates the IDN VIP team upon the successful completion of
> > the case study reports and the final integrated report.  We also wish to
> > record our appreciation for the outreach efforts of the VIP Team aimed at
> > enhancing the community’s understanding about the outcome of its work to
> > date as well as the thinking/framework that guided its work and the
> > processes entailed.
> >
> >
> >
> > *Significance of IDNs and Implications on Future Work of the VIP Team*
> >
> > The ALAC reiterates its continued recognition of the significance and
> > importance of IDNs, including IDN TLDs in enhancing diversity and
> embracing
> > multilingualism on the Internet.  We believe that every culture and every
> > language is unique and that the implementation of IDN and IDN Variants
> > would serve to make the Internet more inclusive and representative of the
> > world that we live in.
> >
> > Given the importance of the work, the ALAC calls on the VIP Team to
> ensure
> > that the conduct of its future work is accountable, transparent and does
> > not duplicate work that has or is being done within or without the ICANN
> > community.  Towards this end, we urge the VIP Team to continuously inform
> > the community on its work and progress, and to draw synergize wherever
> > possible by leveraging on the work and expertise of the wider Internet
> > community.
> >
> > The ALAC is pleased with the VIP Team’s interest in engaging the wider
> > Internet community, which the Team expressed during the ICANN meeting
> Costa
> > Rica in March 2012.  In doing so, We request that the VIP Team maintain a
> > high level of transparency and clarify the project basis for engaging
> > consultants vs. community volunteers vs. ICANN staff.
> >
> >
> >
> > *Comments on the Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) Variant Issues
> > Project (VIP) Proposed Project Plan *
> >
> >
> >
> > *Approach*
> >
> > The approach taken by the VIP Team is a standardized, universal and
> > comprehensive one, which has merit in that it takes into consideration
> > aspects of fairness and security.  The approach hinges crucially upon the
> > expectation that it is possible to develop a comprehensive codepoint
> > repertoire and label generation rule-set within a specific timeframe.
>  The
> > VIP Team has been careful to clarify to the ALAC during a webinar on 11
> > April 2012 that until the codepoint repertoire and label-generation
> > rule-set are complete, the implementation of any IDN Variant would not be
> > considered regardless of the level of community readiness.
> >
> >
> >
> > The ALAC concern regarding the VIP Team’s approach is as follows:
> >
> > 1.     The standardized is contrary to the community consensus on
> > appropriate approaches to the IDN Variant issues, which are highly
> diverse.
> > A standardized approach also discriminates against communities who
> > consider themselves ready to implement IDN Variants.
> >
> > 2.     Assuming that it is possible to develop a comprehensive codepoint
> > repertoire and label generation rule-set within the period specified in
> the
> > proposed project plan, the VIP Team will only be ready to work with
> > communities who can demonstrate that they are ready to implement IDN
> > Variants by the middle of Fiscal Year 2013.
> >
> > 3.     The process, timing and criteria for communities to demonstrate
> > their readiness to implement IDN variants are not addressed.  This set of
> > information would serve as an invaluable guide for communities regardless
> > of whether they are early entrants or late entrants to IDN Variant
> > implementation.
> >
> >
> >
> > The ALAC recommends the following:
> >
> >
> >
> > 1.     Adopt an inclusive multistakeholder bottom-up approach to
> > codepoint repertoire development that is consistent with the ICANN IDN
> > Guidelines and relies on the community consensus in identifying and
> > determining codepoints by language/script or groups of languages/scripts.
> >
> > 2.     Develop a framework based on the findings of the integrated report
> > that would serve as a checklist/guide for language communities to develop
> > their IDN Variant TLD policy and or implementation plan.  Such a
> > checklist would include aspects that include codepoint repertoire,
> > codepoint overlap, label generation ruleset, types and states of
> variants,
> > etc.
> >
> > 3.     Clarify the process, timing and criteria for engaging with
> > communities who consider themselves ready to implement IDN Variants.  In
> > addition engage the ICANN channels for reaching out to various language
> > communities to raise their awareness of these considerations.
> >
> >
> >
> > *Cost*
> >
> > The ALAC would appreciate an elaboration on the financial basis of the
> > proposed project.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *Risk*
> >
> > The ALAC understands and appreciates that security risk considerations
> are
> > paramount. The introduction of new technological advancement however,
> > requires balancing risk considerations with benefits to be derived.  The
> > demand for IDN Variants and the findings of the VIP case study reports
> > indicate that the benefits of implementing IDN Variant TLDs out-weigh the
> > risks.
> >
> >
> >
> > *Way Forward*
> >
> > Given that the technical community, including the IETF and the IAB, has
> > iterated that the issue of IDN Variants cannot be solved with a technical
> > solution based on current DNS standards, the ALAC agrees with the view
> > that, in the immediate term, the implementation of IDN Variant TLDs
> should
> > be focused on:
> >
> > 1.     The engagement of communities in developing codepoint repertoire
> > and label generation rule-set.
> >
> > 2.     The development of a process, timeline and criteria for working
> > with communities who are ready to implement IDN Variants.
> >
> > 3.     The development of a framework that guides language communities in
> > developing their IDN Variant policy and implementation plan.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> IDN-WG mailing list
> IDN-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg
>
> IDN WG Wiki: https://st.icann.org/idn-policy/index.cgi?at_large_idn_policy
>