ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

FW: [ccnso-idnpdpwg1] Initial draft Interim paper and final draft topic paper

  • To: "idn-ccpdp@xxxxxxxxx" <idn-ccpdp@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: FW: [ccnso-idnpdpwg1] Initial draft Interim paper and final draft topic paper
  • From: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 03:13:55 -0700

Included are the comments submitted by Manal Ismail, observer to the IDN ccPDP 
WG 2, GAC representative of Egypt.

------ Forwarded Message
From: Manal Ismail
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 04:35:38 -0700
To: Bart Boswinkel
Subject: RE: [ccnso-idnpdpwg1] Initial draft Interim paper and final draft 
topic paper

Dear colleagues ..

I would like to raise two issues in reference to the Chairs Draft Interim Paper:
1.      Inclusion of ASCII ccTLDs within the scope of the PDP:

This issue has already been raised by other colleagues here on the mailing list 
and during the Nairobi meeting .. I think it only makes sense to be consistent 
in delegating country/territory names by having all country/territory names 
fall within the same process .. We cannot have non-ASCII country/territory 
names dealt with as ccTLDs and those in ASCII dealt with as gTLDs .. Hence the 
process, being a long term one, should include all country/territory names 
regardless of the script (ASCII or non-ASCII), regardless of the language 
(official or non-official) and regardless of the length (2-chars or longer) .. 
I do believe that including ASCII ccTLDs or at least ensuring they will follow 
the same process would:

-         address concerns raised within the GAC

-         address concerns raised within the ccNSO

-         tackle an issue within the process of the introduction of new gTLDs 
and if resolved may result in speeding up the process

-         ensure fair and consistent handling of all country / territory names

2.      Ensure output of the PDP is reflected within the IANA delegation 

I also believe that it is very important to benefit from experiences within the 
fast track and have them feed as input to the PDP .. I hence believe it is 
important to ensure that conclusions reached within the PDP are reflected 
within the IANA delegation process wherever applicable and that the IDN 
additional characteristics are also considered within the process .. Some 
concrete examples may be:

-         The current template has a 'domain name' field and does not specify 
which format of the domain name should be submitted (in its xn-format, the 
Unicode points, in its original script, if yes, whether translation would be 
needed, ...........)

-         Also within the fast track process it was understood that a language 
table has to be submitted to the IANA and that applicants should be encouraged 
to use already existing tables if meeting their needs .. At the same time there 
is no step within the IANA delegation process that asks for the language table 
.. and when asking while in Nairobi I was told it's an option .. Although this 
may be accepted within the fast track, I believe should be cleared within the 
PDP .. For example suggesting to have checkboxes within the IANA template along 
the following:

o   Language Table already exists within the IANA repository, please provide 
table name/url

o   Language Table already exists within the IANA repository but does not 
satisfy community needs (submit new)

(it may be helpful here, from a pure repository point of view, to ask the 
applicant to identify how the new one differs from the existing, just for the 
record .. It may be also useful to have a naming convention for the language 
tables that is function of the language & script rather than the registry ..)

o   Language Table does not exist within the IANA repository (submit one)

Would be happy to discuss further ..

Kind Regards

Egypt GAC Representative

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy