Comments on Issue report regarding the possible introduction of IDN ccTLDs
Dear Sir/Madam, We are pleased to express our opinion on IDN ccTLDs introduction and preparing of the respective Issue report. We support ccNSO, gNSO and GAC initiatives on IDN ccTLDs deployment. Nevertheless, we believe that it is possible to make the process of IDN ccTLD policy development more effective. The exact entity responsible for the development of IDN ccTLDs delegation procedures should be defined and the results of its work should be presented in the stated time. If objections on the final results are raised, the discussion may be started. But discussion of the defined procedures will make an agreement process more concentrated and shorter in time. ccNSO has 71 members from different countries at the moment. Its members are represented by well-experienced persons and are aware of all the issues local communities concern about. Therefore, ccNSO is the most appropriate entity for the development of IDN ccTLD policy. If any bylaws need to be revised in order to ccNSO plays this role, it should be done. We believe, proper methods of how to achieve it will be in scope of the Issue report. We also strongly feel the need for IDN ccTLD implementation in our region and, therefore, we look forward to developing and subsequent approving of the "fast track approach" as well as elaborating of the overall IDN ccTLD policy. The main goal of "fast track approach" is supposed to be the delegation of limited number of non-contentious IDN ccTLDs, associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter country codes. We expect Russian Federation to be a part of this "fast track" process. Regarding the question about the possible cyrillic ccTLD, associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter county code, we must notice the following: Special research was made by Russian registry's IDN working group and its conclusions were presented on GAC Meeting 18: Rome, 29 February -- 3 March 2004: http://gac.icann.org/web/meetings/mtg18/docs/cyrillic_IDN.ppt. The working group recommends to avoid user confusion and possible speculations in case of overlapping of cyrillic and latin characters. The solutions of the problem are not to mix cyrillic and latin characters in IDN and clearly identify that domain name is cyrillic. According to the recommendations, the most acceptable approach is to use specific string with unique cyrillic character <cyrillic_IDN>.rf ("rf" - in cyrillic), which exactly allows to identify the cyrillic script. What about <cyrillic_IDN>.py (transliterated .ru), this approach can't be such a solution because string .ру is not good as it coincides with ссTLD of Paraguay (for example, "coca.py" visually can't be identified as IDN). In addition to the above mentioned aspects, there is another confusing thing about the string "py" (transliterated .ru) exists. Both ccTLD ".ru" (latin) and supposing IDN ccTLD ".py" (cyrillic) sound in russian as "roo". It means, if a user pronounces his internet address aloud, he will have to clearify the domain is "in latin" or "in cyrillic" each time. On the other hand, if anyone hears "rf" (in cyrillic), it will be clear at once that internet address is in cyrillic. What about meaningful association with "rf", it is very common and widespread to use "RF" as abbreviation for Russian Federation. To sum up, we welcome the possibility to provide our comments on IDN ccTLD introduction process. We consider ccNSO as the most appropriate entity for IDN ccTLD policy development. The soonest outcome is awaited. String ".rf" (cyrillic) is widely supported as preferable IDN ccTLD within Russian Internet community which is very interested in sooner approving of "fast track approach" as well as developing of the overall IDN ccTLD policy. Yours faithfully, Maria Mokina Coordination Center for TLD RU ---------------------------------------------- Krasnopresnenskaya nab.12, Mezhdunarodnaya-II, off.433, 123610, Moscow Tel. (495)258-1320 Fax (495)258-1321 http://www.cctld.ru |