[ccnso-idncctld] Alternative Views

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi everyone,

Below are some alternative views I have drafted as mentioned previously
(have included them in an email earlier as well):

=======================================

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

1. Mechanism for Handling Comments

There is an alternative view that a mechanism to handle comments early in
the IDN ccTLD Fast Track process would be beneficial.  The mechanism should
allow potential issues that affect the security and stability of the
technical and social fabric of the Internet to be raised and subsequently
addressed to improve the efficiency and transparency of the overall process.

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

This has been discussed many times in the conference calls and the wording
of "handling comments" was developed in a thread between myself, Bertrand
and Chris.

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

2. Non-Contentious of an IDN ccTLD in the Fast Track within a country/region

There is an alternative view that the IDN ccTLD string for Fast Track should
be non-contentious not only within the territory.  Because not all ccTLDs
(i.e. the list of entries of in the ISO 3166-1 standard), are sovereign
countries, it may be useful to consider non-contentiousness within a
corresponding country, region or collective of territories.

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

This was brought up also by a few people with specific regard to whether
some consideration should be given.

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

3. Maintianing Consistency with Current ccTLD Practices and GAC ccTLD
Principles
 
Another alternative view understands that based on available documentation
of ccTLD practices, including the GAC ccTLD principles, while it is accepted
that the delegation of a ccTLD should be a matter within the corresponding
territory, the current practice for the selection of the ccTLD string is
explicitly established through international collaboration.  More
specifically, the current ccTLD practice is not a mechanism whereby each
territory proposes a particular two-letter string to ICANN, but rather it
follows the process of the ISO 3166-1 standard.  The IDN ccTLD Fast Track,
will introduce a new method that cannot be said to be identical with the
current ccTLD practices.  Therefore, it is important to continue to
maintain, as the IDNC WG charter expresses, that the IDN ccTLD introduced in
the Fast Track should be non-contentious.

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

This is a response to the write up prepared by Chris and Bart expressing the
reason why non-contentiousness must only be within territory.  The response
was posted to the list and no further objections were expressed.

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

4. Enforcement of Compliance to IDN Standards and ICANN IDN Guidelines

While the group believes that the issue of whether any legal arrangement
should be established between ICANN and the Fast Track IDN ccTLD is outside
of the scope of the IDNC WG charter, an alternative view holds that in
consideration of the overarching technical requirements for the deployment
of IDN, this report should encourage ICANN to have in place an expressed
understanding with the Fast Track IDN ccTLD to ensure continued compliance
with the IDN standards and ICANN IDN Guidelines.
Furthermore, such expressed understanding should ensure a smooth transition
of the Fast Track IDN ccTLD to the ccPDP IDN process once it is established.

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

This is the wording I had mentioned I would draft up for the group in a
previous conference call.

=======================================

Would like to hear from those who agree or disagree with the above
alternative statements.

Edmon