ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

[council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report

  • To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report
  • From: "Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:49:09 +0800
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Organization: DotAsia Organisation
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Acjy+mwf7Ly52BYNRHqzgL9HojYyaA==

Hi Everyone,

As discussed in our last council call, a drafting team convened to redraft a
set of comments in response to the IDNC WG Final Report.

Please find attached the draft.

In summary, the document is separated in to 3 main parts:

Part 1: Acknowledgement of good points in the IDNC report with some
suggestions for further improvement
        1. The use of international standard to define official language and
meaningfulness of string
        2. The conducting of an RFI (Request for Information)
        3. Fast Track being an ongoing mechanism
        4. Waiting for IDNAbis review to be completed before implementation
Part 2: Issues of significant concern
        A. Non-contentiousness only within territory
        B. Lack of process for determining non-contentiousness
        C. Lack of mechanism to enforce compliance
Part 3: Reiterating some points from the GNSO Response to the GAC issues
        - IDN gTLDs and ccTLDs should be introduced asap
        - IDN gTLDs and ccTLDs should go together
        - Confusingly similar strings should be avoided
        - Considerations against spoofing

Then finally we also added a paragraph to revise one of the points in our
previous statement in response to strong objection by the Indian delegate
during our meeting with the GAC in Paris.  The paragraph was specifically
tagged for council review because it is a revision of a statement we had put
out earlier and the particular point was discussed at length.

Anyway, for your quick reference, the suggested revised statement is as

There should be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant
script per relevant language.

Finally, the comment period currently open at ICANN is scheduled to close on
Aug 15.  The plan is to have the document agreed to in our meeting next
week: Aug 7 to allow us to submit the comments in time.

Suggestions, edits, comments welcome.
Discussion on the list before our meeting next week should be useful.


Attachment: GNSO-Comments-IDNCFinalReport--2008-07-31.doc
Description: MS-Word document

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