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

["Chris Disspain" <ceo@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Greetings Edmon,

Thank you for your input. Doubtless those that agree with your points will
post to the list. I have put my comments below.

Meanwhile may I respectfully request, given that you have consistently
been suggesting an objection procedure or now ‘handling comments’, that
you provide the WG with your suggested wording for the report so that we
may comment on it.

Regards,

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 Edmon Chung
Sent: Friday, 6 June 2008 17:40
To: ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ccnso-idncctld] RE: [ccnso-idncctld] 答复: [ccnso-idncctld] 答
复: [ccnso-idncctld] Draft Final Report

In addition to Jian's note, I would like to reiterate, as described in the
thread subsequent to our last teleconference that it is inappropriate to
call these suggestions "minority report" because there is no evidence
showing any majority consensus on the matter.
[Chris Disspain] I disagree. I believe that there is consensus but let us
see who posts in favour of your suggestions.

Also, the characterization that " the string should be non-contentious
both within and outside the territory and consequently an objection
procedure is necessary" seems incorrect according to the discussion.

1. The two should be decoupled.  They are related but not necessarily a
consequence of each other.
2. In a previous thread on the mailing list there seems to be an emerging
consensus that characterization of an "objection procedure" is not
conducive to the discussion, rather that we should use wording such as
"handling of comments".
[Chris Disspain] I have no problem with you changing the wording of what
you are suggesting.

At the very least, I feel that these should be rectified to better reflect
the discussions we had.  In summary:

A. Instead of describing the point as "minority report" it should be
described as "alternative opinions"
[Chris Disspain] I believe it is a minority position and the charter
refers to the same label however, I have no problem in changing the words
so long as we are clear who on the WG subscribes to the ‘alternative
options’.
B. That we should decouple the 2 distinct concepts presented in the "NOTE"
in Principle E
C. That we start to use "handling of comments" rather than "objection
procedure"

Overall, I feel that the "Final Report" should have more extensive
discussion as well as a simple proposed mechanism.  The draft seems to be
lacking significantly in "reporting" the deliberations of the group.
While I agree that the proposed mechanism should be simple, the "report"
of our deliberations should not be omitted.
[Chris Disspain] You are correct. It is not the purpose of this report to
report on how we came to make recommendations. The purpose of the report
is to recommend a methodology to the Board if we are able. Those
interested in our ‘deliberations’ are welcome to listen to the
recordings.

More specifically, I believe we need to provide rationale on how we came
to these conclusions.
[Chris Disspain] Well, I think the report actually does that. However, if
you would like to suggest something please feel free to do so.

Edmon



From: owner-ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of zhangjian
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 11:45 AM
To: 'Chris Disspain'; 'Bart Boswinkel'; ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ccnso-idncctld] 答复: [ccnso-idncctld] 答复: [ccnso-idncctld]
Draft Final Report

Chris:
Thanks for your quick response.
Regards
Jian

  _____

发件人: Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo@xxxxxxxxxxx]
发送时间: 2008年6月6日 11:41
收件人: 'zhangjian'; 'Bart Boswinkel'; ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx
主题: RE: [ccnso-idncctld] 答复: [ccnso-idncctld] Draft Final Report

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