RE: [council] RE: IDN ccTLD Fast Track implementation plan council comments

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

One example that was recently pointed out to me is a shortened version
of Thailand. Evidently, when abbreviated as two internationalized
characters it becomes the Thai word for "free". A Thai-script IDN ccTLD
for Thailand could then possibly conflict out ".free" as a gTLD and its
IDN foreign language equivalents.

Tim 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] RE: IDN ccTLD Fast Track implementation plan
council comments
From: "Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, January 02, 2009 8:34 pm
To: "'Gomes, Chuck'" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Council GNSO'"
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

1. The headings were taken directly from the Draft Implementation Plan,
see
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/idn-cctld-implementation-plan-26nov08-en.pdf
(page 26)
 
2. Similarly, that was taken from the Draft Implementation Plan (as
above), Module 7, Discussion of Additional Topics: " This Module 7
contains a description of issues and topics that are relevant parts of
the Draft Implementation Plan, but were not (fully) covered in the IDNC
Final Report. It also includes the list of outstanding issues which the
ICANN Board directed staff to produce in advance of the ICANN Cairo
meeting in November 2008."
 
The intent of including all of the topics was to make a point that some
of these "Additional Topics" may/should require further discussion by
the community because it could potentially have broader impact and was
not already covered by the IDNC.
 
Also, just because it is restricted to a meaningful representation of a
country name, it does not I think automatically mean that it will never
conflict with a potential/existing gTLD string OR a then existing ccTLD.
 
Edmon
 
 
 
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Saturday, January 3, 2009 8:01 AM
To: Edmon Chung; Council GNSO
Subject: [council] RE: IDN ccTLD Fast Track implementation plan council
comments



Edmon,

Good job.  I have just two comments:
It seems to me that "Compliance with consensus policies." is not a very
good heading for item 4, dealing with security & stability.  Would this
be better: "Ensuring security and stability'?Is item 5 really a concern
in the fast tract if the IDN ccTLD fast track names are restricted to
country names as defined  by the IDNC?  It seems to me that it might not
be.

Chuck


From: Edmon Chung [mailto:edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 12:35 AM
To: gnso-idnc-initial@xxxxxxxxx; 'Council GNSO'
Subject: IDN ccTLD Fast Track implementation plan council comments
Hi Everyone, 
Apologies for the delay on this matter, please find attached the draft
for the council comments on the Draft IDN ccTLD Fast Track
implementation plan.
The document is mainly separated into 2 parts: 
(A) response on Module 7, where 5 open questions were raised 
(B) reemphasizing some of the issues raised previously 

For (A) the 5 open questions listed in Module 7 were: 
1. Ensuring ongoing compliance with the IDN technical standards,
including the IDNA protocol and the IDN Guidelines. 
2. Possible establishment of financial contributions. 
3. IDN ccTLD operator association to the ICANN community. 
4. Compliance with consensus policies 
5. Prevention of contention issues with existing TLDs and those under
application in the gTLD process. 
The draft mainly extracted statements from previous documents to respond
to the topics, but have also emphasized that we may require much broader
input from the community on the issues because they are largely new
considerations not specifically discussed previously.  In particular, 3
& 4, and some respects 2 & 5.

For (B) 3 items were specifically reemphasized: 
1. Lack of structure for implementation in the situation where a
proposed Fast Track IDN ccTLD string is not listed in the UNGEGN manual
(i.e. not in a particular authoritative list)
2. Lack of clarity in the process for linguistic process check and
confirmation of a requested string 
3. Lack of consideration for avoiding confusingly similar strings 

Comments/thoughts welcome. 
Since, the deadline for comments to the draft implementation plan is Jan
9, in view of time, perhaps we can have a discussion on the council list
and on our meeting on Jan 8 to finalize our response.
Edmon 

PS. Happy New Year! :-)