[ccnso-idncctld] RE: Draft Final Report

["Chris Disspain" <ceo@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Jian,

See my comments below. I have been straight forward in my response rather
than ‘diplomatic’.

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.
[Chris Disspain] Actually that is incorrect. The ICANN Board resolution
and the WG charter both specifically refer to the fast track being for the
purpose of introducing a limited number of  IDN ccTLDs associated with the
ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes (IDN ccTLDs). These we choose to refer to as
territories because some of them are countries and some of them are not.
See also the RFC 1591, ICP 1, Article XI, section 2.1.bof the ICANN Bylaws
and the Operating Principles of the GAC.

If you would prefer we could replace the word ‘territory’ in the
document with a reference to the “entities listed on the ISO 3166-1
list” but I suspect this will not solve your problem.


 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:
[Chris Disspain] This is simply way outside the scope of the WG. We have
specifically been asked to come up with a methodology that refers back to
the ISO list. We cannot possibly arbitrarily start re-defining this by
making a distinction between some territories that are listed on the ISO
list and others.


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”.
[Chris Disspain] I repeat what I have said above. We simply cannot do
this. It is not the job of the fast track or the WG to draft a methodology
to solve political issues. Where a territory is governed by another (for
example the French territories in the Pacific) there are national laws in
place that enable the ‘mother country’ to govern that dependent
territory where appropriate. It is NOT the place of the Fast Track to try
to enhance those laws.

Your problem is of course with Taiwan and you appear to be attempting to
create a fast track process that would give you the right to object to an
IDN ccTLD string chosen by Taiwan on the basis that you would claim that
they are not a country. With respect, it is NOT the place of the Fast
Track to solve your political problem for you.


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”.
[Chris Disspain] Well, in my view a sentence such as ‘among territories
if necessary’ would be a disaster. Would Taiwan or Singapore be able to
hold up the Chinese IDN ccTLD application and move it outside the Fast
Track? Surely that would not be acceptable to the Chinese government.

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