[council] FW: [ccnso-idncctld] Draft Final Report
cgomes at verisign.com
Tue Jun 10 00:05:13 UTC 2008
Edmon (and other GNSO participants in the IDNC),
Thanks for providing this. Let me start off by saying that I personally
believe that a lot of good work has gone into this; with that in mind
though, I will focus only on some some questions and comments I have.
'C: Purpose of Fast Track is to meet pressing demand'
I find it interesting that 'pressing demand' will be measured by
'readiness of the selected delegate and relevant stakeholders in the
territory to meet the requirements to introduce an IDN ccTLD'.
If that is ultimately what is decided, am I correct in
concluding that any ccTLD organization that is ready will be deemed to
have a pressing demand?
Sorry for the unrealistic example and one that will not be
allowed because it is a non-Latin script but I think it illustrates my
point: If deNIC demonstrates it is ready to offer name registration
services for .deutschland, then they will have satisfied the criterion;
is that accurate? So they would be deemed to establish pressing demand
even if there isn't any.
The same flawed logic could be used for a non-Latin script.
It might make more sense to have a criterion of readiness
instead of pressing demand if that is the way it will be measured.
E: The proposed string and delegation request should be non-contentious
within the territory
* I won't restate the problems you are already aware of with
regard to the definition of non-contentious.
'Stage 1: Preparing for the Fast Track in Territory'
* How is a delegate selected?
* Who selects a delegate?
* Is that left totally up to the local community?
"Requirements relating to the script
For purposes of the Fast Track a non-Latin script is considered to be a
script which identifiers are represented with characters in Unicode not
being ASCII, i.e. [a- z, 0-9]."
* This definition may need to be refined. As I read it, it could
be interpreted to mean that German, Spanish and French are based on
non-Latin scripts because they each have non-ASCII characters.
* In the 1st & 7th bullets, what is meant by 'IDNA2008'?
* Does it refer to the yet to be revised IDNA protocol?
* If so, is it accurate to assume that fast track ccIDNs will not
be introduced until the IDNA protocol revision is finished?
* In reading this document, I can't help but think that
implementing these recommendations is going to be complex and
time-consuming not unlike implementation of the new gTLD
recommendations. Do you agree?
* Have there been any discussions about implementation? How it
would happen? How long it might take? etc.
Thanks for all of the time each of you are spending on this work.
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 3:04 AM
To: 'Council GNSO'
Subject: [council] FW: [ccnso-idncctld] Draft Final Report
Attached is the draft IDNC final report by Bart and Chris
From: owner-ccnso-idncctld at icann.org
[mailto:owner-ccnso-idncctld at icann.org] On Behalf Of Bart Boswinkel
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 9:05 PM
To: ccnso-idncctld at icann.org
Subject: [ccnso-idncctld] Draft Final Report
Included is the first version of the draft Final Report. To be
discussed at the next call. The next IDNC WG call is scheduled for
Wednesday 11 June 2008, at noon (12 am) UTC.
Those members of the IDNC WG who think that Principle E should
be re-worded and/or there should be an objection procedure, please
provide wording to be inserted. In the draft is a section for minority
views. It would be most helpful if the wording could be provided two day
in advance of the next IDNC WG call.
The intention is to post the draft Final Report on the ICANN
Website by 13 June 2008.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the council