Re: [ccnso-idncctld] Alternative Views

[Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Admon,
In order to be able to include the alternate views in the report I have a few 
questions to Edmon and would be grateful if members could, as Edmon suggested, 
indicate support for each of the alternate views. I've included the questions 
in the different sections.
Thanks, kind regards,
Bart

On 6/12/08 12:14 PM, "Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



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.

BB: To what extend does this wording depends on the alternative wording for 
Principle E? Is this your alternative wording for objection procedure? As I 
understand it, the IDNC WG has not discussed this in these terms. Who of the 
IDNC WG members is in support of this view
----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

BB: As far as I recall this view was expressed by Zhiang Jian and Jonathan Shea 
on the conference call ofn 28 May 2008. As far as I understand they no longer 
hold  this view (please confirm) Chris and I prepared for the list,  but you 
refer to it as an alternative. Is this currently yours? Does anybody else on 
the WG supports this view?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Does this refer to Principle E? If so, how does it relate to to your rewording 
of Principle E you just send to the list? Should both be included?
Are there other members on the WG who support this view?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Listening back to the recording of the meeting on 28 May, you indicated you 
expect the Board would find the WG  irresponsible if the WG would  not include 
something like a recommendation on a an agreement. You also indicated you would 
write something up for consideration by the Group.   As you indicate this note 
is now for the group to consider. As you send it in yesterday. I propose we 
defer this issue to the face to face meeting in meeting in Paris for further 
discussion.

In order to prepare for Paris does the WG agree we revisit the subject again in 
Paris? Secondly, are there other members on the WG who support Edmon's view?