<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: RE: [ccnso-idncctld] RE: [ccnso-idncctld] RE: [ccnso-idncctld] RE: [ccnso-idncctld] ??: [ccnso-idncctld] ??: [ccnso-idncctld] Draft Final Report
- To: Manal Ismail <manal@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: RE: [ccnso-idncctld] RE: [ccnso-idncctld] RE: [ccnso-idncctld] RE: [ccnso-idncctld] ??: [ccnso-idncctld] ??: [ccnso-idncctld] Draft Final Report
- From: Young Eum Lee <yesunny@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 17:51:30 +0900 (KST)
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<STYLE>P {margin-top:2px;margin-bottom:2px;}</STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=white><P>Apologies for my late response...</P>
<P>I am also in favor of the current wording of Principle E. </P>
<P>I strongly believe that the opinion of the major parties within
the territory should be respected.</P>
<P> </P>
<P>- Young-Eum.<BR><BR></P>
<P>
<HR>
</P>
<P>
<STYLE>body{font-size:10pt;color:#6B6B6B}</STYLE>
<SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY:
Verdana">????: </SPAN>Manal Ismail [manal@xxxxxxxxxx]<BR><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY:
Verdana">????: </SPAN>Edmon Chung
[edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx],ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx<BR><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold;
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">? ?: </SPAN>2008? 6? 7?(?)
22:49:37<BR><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black;
FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">? ?: </SPAN>RE: [ccnso-idncctld] RE: [ccnso-idncctld] RE:
[ccnso-idncctld] RE: [ccnso-idncctld] ??: [ccnso-idncctld] ??: [ccnso-idncctld]
Draft Final Report<BR><BR> <BR>Dear All .. <BR><BR>Apologies for not
sending my comments, to the wording of Principle E, earlier .. I have sent it
to the GAC list and have just been notified that I never shared it on the ccNSO
list .. <BR>Please find below .. <BR><BR>--Manal
<BR><BR>________________________________ <BR><BR>From:
gac-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Manal Ismail <BR>Sent: Mon 26/05/2008
10:41 AM <BR>To: GACList <BR>Subject: RE: [ccnso-idncctld] Note on Point E
<BR><BR><BR><BR>Thanks Janis .. <BR><BR><BR><BR>Dear Colleagues ..
<BR><BR><BR><BR>I'm in favour of the current wording of Point E of the draft
interim report, stating that: <BR><BR>The proposed string and delegation
request should be non-contentious within the territory <BR><BR>and still this
won't exclude other requirements such as technical requirements, security and
stability requirements, IDN guidelines, ... etc <BR><BR><BR><BR>I don't agree
to the alternative wording of Point E, stating: <BR><BR>The proposed string and
delegation request should be non-contentious <BR><BR>I think this wording makes
the requirement vague and intangible .. In fact it makes the proposed string
and delegation request, even if non-contentious within a specific territory,
subject to objections from anyone around the globe, which contradicts with the
GAC principles .. <BR><BR>This has to do again with the objection procedure
which I don't see needed, specifically within a fast track approach
<BR><BR><BR><BR>I think submissions within the fast track, following the fast
track requirements, would be straight forward choices of country names else
they won't fit within the fast track .. Can simple choices of country names
cause any problems (apart from technical problems) ? I see 2 cases here, I'm
sure this doesn't exhaustively cover all probabilities but at least those are
specific cases that were raised during the discussions: <BR><BR><BR><BR>1.
either the selected string, directly relating to the country name, is common in
names of more than one country .. and here I don't think ICANN should be the
entity deciding on such an issue .. ICANN, rightly, does not get involved in
problems within a territory and definitely should not get involved in such
problems between countries .. Additionally, by definition such a case, if not
resolved between the concerned counties, won't fit within the fast track ..
<BR>2. <BR>3. or the selected string, directly relating to the country name, is
a generic name .. and this should be accepted if the words comprising the name
of the country are all generic and do not include a 'specific' word that can
relate to the country name i.e. any selection would still be a generic word ..
<BR><BR>On the other hand I personally don't mind the existence of a linguistic
committee from the point of string interpretation and confirmation and not
choice evaluation .. meaning that I can see the need for a few experts who
should be able to help or able to seek help simply to interpret what's being
submitted to the ICANN (the string, it's meaning, it's language, ....) ..
<BR><BR><BR><BR>------------------------------
<BR><BR><BR>________________________________ <BR><BR>From:
owner-ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx on behalf of Edmon Chung <BR>Sent: Sat
07/06/2008 10:22 AM <BR>To: ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx <BR>Subject:
[ccnso-idncctld] RE: [ccnso-idncctld] RE: [ccnso-idncctld] RE: [ccnso-idncctld]
??: [ccnso-idncctld] ??: [ccnso-idncctld] Draft Final Report
<BR><BR><BR><BR>The wording of "handling comments" is not my suggestion but a
result of the discussion on this list. <BR><BR><BR><BR>I will send some
suggested wording for Principle E and other edits. <BR><BR><BR><BR>In the other
way round, I am sure those who think there is no contention regarding the
principle would also post to the list. <BR><BR><BR><BR>Edmon
<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>From: owner-ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chris Disspain <BR>Sent:
Saturday, June 07, 2008 11:32 AM <BR>To: 'Edmon Chung';
ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx <BR>Subject: [ccnso-idncctld] RE: [ccnso-idncctld] RE:
[ccnso-idncctld] ??: [ccnso-idncctld] ??: [ccnso-idncctld] Draft Final Report
<BR><BR><BR><BR>Greetings Edmon, <BR><BR><BR><BR>Thank you for your input.
Doubtless those that agree with your points will post to the list. I have put
my comments below. <BR><BR><BR><BR>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. <BR><BR><BR><BR>Regards,
<BR><BR><BR><BR>Chris Disspain <BR><BR>CEO - auDA <BR><BR>Australia's Domain
Name Administrator <BR><BR>ceo@xxxxxxxxxxx <BR><BR>www.auda.org.au <HTTP:
www.auda.org.au /><BR><BR><BR><BR>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. <BR><BR><BR><BR>________________________________ <BR><BR>From:
owner-ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Edmon Chung <BR>Sent: Friday, 6 June 2008 17:40 <BR>To:
ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx <BR>Subject: [ccnso-idncctld] RE: [ccnso-idncctld] ??:
[ccnso-idncctld] ??: [ccnso-idncctld] Draft Final Report <BR><BR><BR><BR>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. <BR><BR>[Chris Disspain] I disagree. I believe that
there is consensus but let us see who posts in favour of your suggestions.
<BR><BR><BR><BR>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.
<BR><BR><BR><BR>1. The two should be decoupled. They are related but not
necessarily a consequence of each other. <BR><BR>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". <BR><BR>[Chris Disspain] I
have no problem with you changing the wording of what you are suggesting.
<BR><BR><BR><BR>At the very least, I feel that these should be rectified to
better reflect the discussions we had. In summary: <BR><BR><BR><BR>A. Instead
of describing the point as "minority report" it should be described as
"alternative opinions" <BR><BR>[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'. <BR><BR>B. That we should decouple the 2 distinct
concepts presented in the "NOTE" in Principle E <BR><BR>C. That we start to use
"handling of comments" rather than "objection procedure"
<BR><BR><BR><BR>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. <BR><BR>[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. <BR><BR><BR><BR>More specifically, I believe we need
to provide rationale on how we came to these conclusions. <BR><BR>[Chris
Disspain] Well, I think the report actually does that. However, if you would
like to suggest something please feel free to do so. <BR><BR><BR><BR>Edmon
<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>From: owner-ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of zhangjian <BR>Sent:
Friday, June 06, 2008 11:45 AM <BR>To: 'Chris Disspain'; 'Bart Boswinkel';
ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx <BR>Subject: [ccnso-idncctld] ??: [ccnso-idncctld] ??:
[ccnso-idncctld] Draft Final Report <BR><BR><BR><BR>Chris: <BR><BR>Thanks for
your quick response. <BR><BR>Regards <BR><BR>Jian
<BR><BR><BR><BR>________________________________ <BR><BR>???: Chris Disspain
[mailto:ceo@xxxxxxxxxxx] <BR>????: 2008?6?6? 11:41 <BR>???: 'zhangjian'; 'Bart
Boswinkel'; ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx <BR>??: RE: [ccnso-idncctld] ??:
[ccnso-idncctld] Draft Final Report <BR><BR><BR><BR>Jian, <BR><BR><BR><BR>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. <BR><BR><BR><BR>Thanks for your input. <BR><BR><BR><BR>Cheers,
<BR><BR><BR><BR>Chris Disspain <BR><BR>CEO - auDA <BR><BR>Australia's Domain
Name Administrator <BR><BR>ceo@xxxxxxxxxxx <BR><BR>www.auda.org.au <HTTP:
www.auda.org.au /><BR><BR><BR><BR>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. <BR><BR><BR><BR>________________________________ <BR><BR>From:
owner-ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of zhangjian <BR>Sent: Friday, 6 June 2008 13:24 <BR>To: 'Bart
Boswinkel'; ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx <BR>Subject: [ccnso-idncctld] ??:
[ccnso-idncctld] Draft Final Report <BR><BR><BR><BR>Dear all:
<BR><BR><BR><BR>As I mentioned in the last call, before we submit the draft for
public review, there is an issue has to be addressed. <BR><BR><BR><BR>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: <BR><BR>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". <BR><BR>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". <BR><BR><BR><BR>Best regards
<BR><BR>Jian Zhang
<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>________________________________ <BR><BR>???:
owner-ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx] ?? Bart
Boswinkel <BR>????: 2008?6?4? 21:05 <BR>???: ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx <BR>??:
[ccnso-idncctld] Draft Final Report <BR><BR><BR><BR>Dear All, <BR>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. <BR><BR>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. <BR><BR><BR>The intention is to post the draft Final Report on the ICANN
Website by 13 June 2008. <BR><BR>Kind regards, <BR>Bart <BR><BR></P></BODY>
</HTML>
<!--sign up-->
<table width=100% ><td valign=top><HTML>
<HEAD>
<STYLE>P {margin-top:2px;margin-bottom:2px;}</STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: arial"><TABLE>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD>
<STYLE>P {margin-top:2px;margin-bottom:2px;}</STYLE>
<P>Young Eum Lee</P>
<P>Department of Media Arts and Sciences</P>
<P>Korea National Open University</P>
<P><A
href="http://www.knou.ac.kr/~yesunny";>http://www.knou.ac.kr/~yesunny</A></P>
<P><A
href="mailto:yesunny@xxxxxxxxxx";>yesunny@xxxxxxxxxx</A></P></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>(82)
11-9895-5499</BODY>
</HTML>
<br><img src="http://mail.knou.ac.kr/mail.knou.ac.kr.sign";
onError="this.src='/template/common/img/main/blank.png';" ></td></table>
<IMG
SRC="http://mail.knou.ac.kr/servlet/CheckRead?key=1213001490397&folderID=yesunny@xxxxxxxxxx:002outbox&db=CRINITY&table=CRMAIL&rcpt=ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx&outBoxSEQ=";>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|