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

["zhangjian" <zhangjian@xxxxxxxx>]

Dear all:
About point 1, I truly agree that ICANN should not be involved with a
problem within a country/territory, neither should ICANN be involved with
such issue between countries/territories. I also agree, that such issue if
not resolved between the concerned counties, won't fit within the fast
track. Further more, we know there are potential disputes may raise between
territories. However, in the current fast-track procedure, there is no
mechanism that built in to identify such disputes or objections from other
country/territory. thus, I'd like to propose an objection procedure that
opens only to country/territory. 

Best regards
Jian

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: owner-ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx] 代表 Manal Ismail
发送时间: 2008年6月7日 21:50
收件人: Edmon Chung; ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx
主题: RE: [ccnso-idncctld] RE: [ccnso-idncctld] RE: [ccnso-idncctld] RE:
[ccnso-idncctld] ??: [ccnso-idncctld] ??: [ccnso-idncctld] Draft Final
Report


Dear All ..
 
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 ..
Please find below ..
 
--Manal
 
________________________________

From: gac-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Manal Ismail
Sent: Mon 26/05/2008 10:41 AM
To: GACList
Subject: RE: [ccnso-idncctld] Note on Point E



Thanks Janis ..

 

Dear Colleagues ..

 

I'm in favour of the current wording of Point E of the draft interim report,
stating that:

The proposed string and delegation request should be non-contentious within
the territory

and still this won't exclude other requirements such as technical
requirements, security and stability requirements, IDN guidelines, ... etc 

 

I don't agree to the alternative wording of Point E, stating:

The proposed string and delegation request should be non-contentious

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  ..

This has to do again with the objection procedure which I don't see needed,
specifically within a fast track approach

 

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:

 

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 .. 
2.      
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
.. 

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, ....) .. 

 

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


________________________________

From: owner-ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx on behalf of Edmon Chung
Sent: Sat 07/06/2008 10:22 AM
To: ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ccnso-idncctld] RE: [ccnso-idncctld] RE: [ccnso-idncctld] RE:
[ccnso-idncctld] ??: [ccnso-idncctld] ??: [ccnso-idncctld] Draft Final
Report



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] ??:
[ccnso-idncctld] ??: [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 <http://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] ??: [ccnso-idncctld] ??:
[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] ??: [ccnso-idncctld] ??: [ccnso-idncctld] Draft
Final Report

 

Chris:

Thanks for your quick response.

Regards

Jian

 

________________________________

???: Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
????: 2008?6?6? 11:41
???: 'zhangjian'; 'Bart Boswinkel'; ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx
??: RE: [ccnso-idncctld] ??: [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 <http://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] ??: [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

 

 

 

________________________________

???: owner-ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx]
?? Bart Boswinkel
????: 2008?6?4? 21:05
???: ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx
??: [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