Re: [ccnso-idncctld] Draft Final Report
- To: "Bart Boswinkel" <bart.boswinkel@xxxxxxxxx>, ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [ccnso-idncctld] Draft Final Report
- From: "Hong Xue" <hongxueipr@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 10:51:35 +0800
Our next call on June 11 will be partially clashing with ALAC Monthly
call. Just in case I cannot join you at the seocnd half, I'm sending
in my comments in advance.
Firstly, I'm sticking to my views on "non-contentiousness" and
"objection procedure" raised in the two calls in April 2008;
Secondly, fast-track is only the beginning, not the last thing that
everybody must catch. To ensure the speed implementation, we shall
keep it as non-contentious as possible. It does not make much sense to
complicate the whole thing and consequently slow down its takeoff. Why
not simply let those that are completely non-contentious ones go
first? There will be a PDP to catch all!
Third, any further delay will only take toll on the users who have
been anxiously waiting for IDNs for a very long time. So, no more
delay! Fast track must proceed as scheduled.
2008/6/6 zhangjian <zhangjian@xxxxxxxx>:
> Dear all:
> As I mentioned in the last call, before we submit the draft for public
> review, there is an issue has to be addressed.
> We all agree that IDN is a complicated issue. In all previous discussion,
> there is consensus that when ccTLD represented in one's native language,
> there would be many potential complications with the meaning of the string
> that represent (that was one of the major reasons for setting up fast-track
> process). We can foresee that one string selected by one territory may cause
> uncomfortableness of another territory which is using the same language.
> Further, there is no definition of the term "territory" in the current
> draft, and the different understanding of the term from related parties may
> cause future disputes over an application. And that, may just jeopardize the
> effectiveness of the fast-track. To ensure the fast-track to be truly
> "fast", I'd propose we substitute the term "territory" with "country/region"
> based on the following reason:
> The proposed string is meaningful, which means along side with the string to
> be a meaningful representation of the "territory" in one's native language,
> the string may contain cultural and political connotations. This is one
> important characteristic of IDN, compare to the ASCII short code
> representation of an "area". I think the term "country/region" will work
> better to avoid such complications than "territory".
> Hence, in order to avoid any potential dispute and to confine Fast Track to
> a limited and non-contentious scope, this is advisable that we use the term
> "country/region" as a desirable wording instead of "territory". Or at least,
> we should note in the draft that consensus should be reached not only
> "within territory", but also "among territories if necessary".
> Best regards
> Jian Zhang
> 发件人: owner-ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx]
> 代表 Bart Boswinkel
> 发送时间: 2008年6月4日 21:05
> 收件人: ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx
> 主题: [ccnso-idncctld] Draft Final Report
> Dear All,
> 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.
> Kind regards,