RE: [ccnso-idncctld] Edits to Principle E

["Manal Ismail" <manal@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I never meant that both committees are to cover everything that is related to 
security and stability .. My understanding is:
 
1. we never compiled a complete list of issues that need to be considered 
2. we expect things to emerge and that's why it is mentioned in the report that 
the fast track is experimental in nature .. in the sense that things may arise 
and should be solved as we go .. 
3. fast track is not expected to solve everything, it is rather a quick start 
where we are just need to make sure that, as we proceed, we proceed in a right 
agreed direction
 
Please correct me if I'm wrong ..
 
I also fully agree with you that 5 experts will never be aware of all 
languages, nor 6 nor 7 and I cannot think of a specific number who may .. yet I 
understand that those experts should be able also to seek help, advice, or 
consultation from other more specialized experts according to the 
language/script of the proposed IDN ccTLD ..
 
So may be I was not clear in my first message .. my point is, are there any 
pressing security and stability issues that need to be addressed at this stage 
and are not covered .. if the answer is yes, and there are issues we already 
know of (and examples here are most welcome), that are not addressed and need 
to be addressed at this stage, then the suggested re-wording is not solving the 
problem .. If the suggestion is just to stress on the importance of security 
and stability then, as I tried to explain in my previous message, I think 
having it as an overarching requirement better serves this objective ..
 
I hope this helps to better clarify my point of view ..
 
--Manal

________________________________

From: owner-ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx on behalf of Cary Karp
Sent: Fri 13/06/2008 11:41 AM
To: ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ccnso-idncctld] Edits to Principle E




Quoting Manal:

> If both committees (technical and linguistic) are not sufficient to
> address and maintain security and stability requirements then we must
> think of a third commitee to do so ..

Can we realistically expect a committee of linguistic experts also to be
conversant with the security and stability issues that attach to the
DNS?  Since the DNS does not convey any information whatsoever about
language identity, it seems unlikely that linguists spend much time
considering the intersection of their discipline with the field of
concern of the SSAC.

I'm also puzzled by the expectation that five experts can be adequately
enough familiar with all of the languages that may figure in the
impending exercise to do any real good, without significant adjunct
expertise. There is not even a remote relationship between ICANN's
geopolitical division of the world into five regions and the way human
languages aggregate into families. And even if there were, the degree
of heterogeneity that each of the five linguists will need to address
lies well beyond what an individual expert can reasonably be expected
to manage.

/Cary