[ccnso-idncctld] RE: Draft Final Report

["Chris Disspain" <ceo@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jian,

I am still working on a response to your previous email and will get that
to you later today. Meanwhile, re your comments below, could you provide
an example please?

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.




> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ccnso-idncctld@icann.
org] On Behalf Of zhangjian
> Sent: Tuesday, 10 June 2008 02:03
> To: 'Manal Ismail'; 'Edmon Chung'; ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [ccnso-idncctld] 答复: [ccnso-idncctld] RE: [ccnso-idncctld]
RE: [ccnso-idncctld] RE: [ccnso-idncctld] ??:
> [ccnso-idncctld] ??: [ccnso-idncctld] Draft Final Report
>
>
> 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@icann.
org]
> 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@icann.
org]
> 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@icann.
org]
> 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@icann.
org]
> 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
>
>
>