Re: [alac] IDN document, draft 5 again

[Erick Iriarte Ahon <faia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Vittorio

I take the same position from Thomas in this points:

Point 8.
Thomas said:

"I continue to object against this recommendation.  Declaring
existing IDN registrations provisional would be (1) unjustified and
(2) a fatal precedent [ICANN retroactively declaring domain name
registrations "provisional"], and certainly the wrong thing to do
for ICANN. "

I am agree with that, and it's necessary to change the paragraph, to 
includes the actually developments in the policy about IDN.
And maybe make some comments about the possibility to use the UDRP (in fact 
now they use) to resolved IDNs disputes cases.

----------
Point 9:
Thomas said:
"I'm not so convinced that attempting to introduce telecom-like
universal access/service obligations on higher levels of the
Internet's protocol stack is such a good idea."

Use the concept of "universal access" for this make a confussion about the 
"nature of domain names", in better way we can eliminate this concept of 
"universal access" and use "free access" or something similar.

---------------
I repeat a past comment, change the word "consumers" by "users".

-------------------

Erick




At 06:00 a.m. 29/12/2004, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> I sent the fifth draft of the IDN document on Dec 20... but since I was
> a bit surprised not to have received any comment, I checked and I
> noticed that I didn't receive it back from the list. Also, it does not
> appear on our web archive of the list - but it is stuck on Dec 20 anyway
> (more work for ICANN webmasters).
>
> So I'm attaching it again - let's see if this time it gets through. The
> text of the message is copied below. (Of course we'll put it out for
> comment not before Jan 7, I'd say.)
>
> Happy New Year,
>
> -----
> Here is the fifth draft of the IDN document, which I think is a good
> compromise between all different proposals - so I hope this is the final
> one. If I don't get objections we will put it out for public comment on
> December 27.
>
> Changes:
> - revised second para wording on cultural priorities (Thomas);
> - weakened recommendation #1 to make it a feasibility study (Thomas);
> - added further clarification at the end of recommendation #4 on the
> opportunity of bundled registrations (we're not saying that bundles are
> compulsory, we're giving two options anyway) (Roberto);
> - added an alternative to stopping the registrations, which is making
> them provisional, ie subject to a final check against the policies once
> approved;
> - added further clarification at the end of recommendation #9, to
> clarify that complete i18n of URIs does not necessarily have to happen
> at the protocol level, but could happen at the application (Roberto).
>
> I did not change anything on #7. I am convinced that "universal access"
> to gTLDs in terms of available scripts should be forced onto registries,
> exactly like other forms of universal access are forced onto
> telecommunication operators. I don't think you can go to Norbert Klein
> and say "you know what? you can't have .com domain names in Cambodian,
> because it's not a relevant market in business terms" - I don't think
> this is right.
>
> I'm not sure whether this would reinforce or weaken my argument :) but
> this morning I was giving a glance at the statement by the WSIS working
> group of ITU:
>
> http://www.itu.int/council/wsis/Geneva3_04/intgov-contribution-wg-wsis.doc
>
> and I found this on page 13:
>
> "For example, deployment of Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) needs
> to be accelerated. If Internet style addresses are to become a
> predominant global addressing scheme in the future for end point
> identifiers or subscriber identity (e.g. for VoIP), then they must
> support all language scripts of the world."
>
> You see, there is an actual strong push coming up from many parts of the
> world for ICANN to meet this request. Just replying "Verisign won't like
> it" will not make the position stronger - at most, it will just show
> that an entity that is so afraid of lawsuits from Verisign isn't fit to
> manage the Internet, and will be loudly exploited to this purpose.
> --
> vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
> http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...