Re: [ccnso-idncctld] RE: [ccnso-idncctld] RE: [ccnso-idncctld] RE: [ccnso-idncctld] 答´_: [ccnso-idncctld] 答´_: [ccnso-idncctld] Draft Final Report

["mcliang" <mcliang@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All:

I support the current wording as proposed by ccNSO and GAC. I think Edman has 
read in too much and mixed up the role of ccTLD with gTLD.

MCL

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:22:36 +0800, Edmon Chung wrote
> The wording of "handling comments" is not my suggestion but a result of the 
> discussion on this list.

>

> I will send some suggested wording for Principle E and other edits.

>

> In the other way round, I am sure those who think there is no contention 
> regarding the principle would also post to the list.

>

> Edmon

>

>

>

> 
> From: owner-ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx] 
> On Behalf Of Chris Disspain
> Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 11:32 AM
> To: 'Edmon Chung'; ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [ccnso-idncctld] RE: [ccnso-idncctld] RE: [ccnso-idncctld] 答復: 
> [ccnso-idncctld] 答復: [ccnso-idncctld] Draft Final Report

>

> 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] 答復: [ccnso-idncctld] 答復: 
> [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] 答復: [ccnso-idncctld] 答復: [ccnso-idncctld] Draft 
> Final Report

>

> Chris:

> Thanks for your quick response.

> Regards

> Jian

>

> 
>

> 發件人: Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> 發送時間: 2008年6月6日 11:41
> 收件人: 'zhangjian'; 'Bart Boswinkel'; ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx
> 主題: RE: [ccnso-idncctld] 答復: [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] 答復: [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

>

>

>

> 
>

> 發件人: owner-ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx] 
> 代表 Bart Boswinkel
> 發送時間: 2008年6月4日 21:05
> 收件人: ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx
> 主題: [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

Ming-Cheng Liang 
02-23411313 ext. 101 
0931779936

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------