RE: [ccnso-idncctld] Alternative Views

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

My further comments inline below.

Overall, I think it would be best if we could include the suggestions as
Alternative Views for now and then we can further discuss them in Paris.
This is consistent with the concept of the draft that it has not be signed
off by the group and is presented as a working document.

Edmon

 

 

From: Bart Boswinkel [mailto:bart.boswinkel@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 7:07 PM
To: Edmon Chung; ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ccnso-idncctld] Alternative Views

 

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

As mentioned, the concept of "objection" has been discussed and I think some
agreement emerged from the group that we should address the issue as
"handling comments".  I am comfortable with the consensus built around this
characterization.


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

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?



It was drafted as part of the alternative view.  Think it should be included
for the draft to be published and further discussed as to whether or not
parts or all of it should exist somewhere in the main document.