[gnso-idn-wg] Fwd: Re: Fwd: application to the NCUC

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

This might be of interest; FYI in case you've missed it.

--- Chun Eung Hwi <chun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Date:         Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:20:47 +0900
> From:         Chun Eung Hwi <chun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Fwd: application to the NCUC
> To:           NCUC-DISCUSS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
<snip>
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: JFC Morfin <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Nov 6, 2006 10:18 AM 
> Subject: [ga] IDN and IANA
> To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: vint@xxxxxxxxxx
> 
>  
> The IGF Athens meeting was quite interesting. I was surprised by
> the 
> pressure that ICANN put on IDNs. I did not see any new technical 
> solution (Falstrom explained that the IETF was active on the issue,
> 
> but it looks they really need help more than anything else). Is it
> : 
> 
> - because Verisign starts sending me (and probably many others)
> CNNIC 
> Chinese.Chinese Name propositions?
> - or because Bob Khan excited people in documenting the way his 
> Handles could be a more open solution? 
> - or because Google could represent a new opportunity?
> - or because there are new possibilities in Windows Vista (may be 
> they listen to what we explain t hem for years?)
> - or because IE7 makes now credible the ML alias/keyword
> propositions? 
> 
> IDNs are necessarily the future of the DNS. I am surprised the GNSO
> 
> has no IDN committee (I heard one could be formed?). The issues we 
> face are not that much technical but strategic (there are two 
> technical problems - the number of TLDs and the phishing, now IE7 
> supports punycode).
> 
> The ITU General Secretary said that on his opinion the Internet of 
> the future would be more national and local than it is today. This
> is 
> also my opinion. I discussed with the candidate to the ITU General 
> Secretariat who was in Athens: we were not in full agreement but he
> 
> would obviously want things to move ahead and open the ITU debate
> in 
> an IETF like manner. However, a Multilingual/Multinational Internet
> 
> is not what the IETF has technically in mind while it is not (yet?)
> 
> what the ITU can politically target [they are (today) purely Gov 
> oriented].
> 
> This is why it is, now and not in a few months, a good opportunity
> to 
> stabilise ICANN for the years to come (in relation with their
> DNSSEC 
> entity?) as an IDN organiser - before the MINC does it. Since the 
> IETF will not deliver anything grandiose, ICANN should show what it
> 
> can do quick, before there is a grassroots move - or to objectively
> 
> ally with it? IMHO the ccNSO is not in a position to do anything 
> exciting, but the GNSO could - considering the governance related
> issues?
> 
> I also reminded the idea that IDN revenues should in priority serve
> 
> the language empowerment work - as .org benefits to ISOC - but in 
> better proportion. There is a better coordination with ISO 3166 MA 
> also to consider. etc.
> 
> Any suggestion/comment?
> jfc
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Chun Eung Hwi
> General Secretary, PeaceNet |   fax:     (+82)  2-2649-2624
> Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81   |   pcs:     (+82)  19-259-2667
> Seoul, 158-600, Korea             | eMail:   chun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>