Draft Initial Report of IDNC WG for comment

["Frank Ellermann" <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi, I've read the draft announced in
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-01feb08.htm
and mostly my impression was "these are good questions".

I'm not sure that I understand two details:

 [3.A.ii]
| Is it necessary for the language represented by the IDN
| script to have a particular status with the Territory ?

There can be more than one language using the same script
in a given Territory, with different names of the Territory
in these languages.  

In that case creating more than one IDN TLD for a Territory
with different "official" languages could make sense, not
limited to different scripts (as in question 3.A.i).

 [1]
| a limited number of non-contentious IDN ccTLDs, associated
| with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes (both the official
| code list of ISO 3166-1 and the list of reserved ISO 3166-1
| code elements)

Which of the *reserved* codes suggests a non-contentious IDN
TLD ?  Treating "eu" as ccTLD was apparently in conflict with
"current practises for the delegation of ccTLDs" as outlined
in RFC 1591 secion 4 (2):

: The IANA is not in the business of deciding what is and
: what is not a country.

Ignoring "eu" and the dupe "uk", where "gb" can get as many
IDN TLDs as they need, all other reserved codes are arguably
irrelevant.  In cases like "gg" it is possible to promote a
reserved code to an official code.

I don't see any "reserved ccTLD fast track IDN candidates",
what do you have in mind ?

Regards,

 Frank