<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] Fwd: Re: Fwd: application to the NCUC
- To: gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: [council] Fwd: Re: Fwd: application to the NCUC
- From: Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 08:31:34 -0800 (PST)
- Cc: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=BlaglKD6JnxalaMm4FvDWSQtgubc26+9Fy4b3PAmayVpxsS8+otuO4bFunsP6L+Dp3lSE2iP2Hnu3dMEhWzEpERT1CBC1ueCUfN4wt0jyu3BzvM6JZF3YUFk0klY5iWYy+A2JqVOgStsByV4B897aBcVK1e+ic9jCYp23uGaluY= ;
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|