[ccnso-idncctld] RE: [ccnso-idncctld] 答复: [ccnso-idncctld] Draft Final Report

["Chris Disspain" <ceo@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jian,

I have asked Bart to draft a response to this which we will send out asap
over the weekend. There are several issues that you raise which we will
need to responds to.

Thanks for your input.

Cheers,

Chris Disspain
CEO - auDA
Australia's Domain Name Administrator
ceo@xxxxxxxxxxx
www.auda.org.au

Important Notice - This email may contain information which is
confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the
use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient,
you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have
received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this
message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this
email.

  _____

From: owner-ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of zhangjian
Sent: Friday, 6 June 2008 13:24
To: 'Bart Boswinkel'; ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ccnso-idncctld] 答复: [ccnso-idncctld] Draft Final Report

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@icann.
org] 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,
Bart