Hi Danny, thank you for your timely contribution, we will make sure that this question and issue, is raised in the IDN discussions about to start their next iteration (in the IDN List and the WIKI - refer here to my recent email reply to JAM on the At-LARGE list c.c. to you) and I have copied the APRALO discussion list on this reply so that they too have access to your question (again refer to the previous email outlining the resolutions and support for IDN fast tracking made by this RALO previously) so that they may also further their discussions and contributions to this issue. CLO -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, 7 December 2007 1:26 AM To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com; cheryl@hovtek.com.au; 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: RE: [At-Large] fast track process for IDN's ALAC Statement: "Given that non-ASCII users have been waiting too long for IDN deployment, it is suggested to adopt a fast-track experimental solution in the short term. Under this short-term solution, the Internet community in each ccTLD territory may choose only one IDN script for deployment." Here's a question for you: "why are non-ASCII users "entitled" to 250 new ccTLDs but are not "entitled" to any IDN gTLDs?" Has the ALAC deliberately chosen to discriminate against the gTLD registry community? Why shouldn't VeriSign or Afilias have the right to launch an IDN version of .com or .info on a "fast-track" basis? Is it because, for some reason, the ALAC believes that VeriSign and Afilias and all other gTLD registries must go through all of the machinations in the new gTLD process while ccTLD registries should not be held accountable to the same standard of care? Why is the ALAC favoring one part of the supplier community over another? Shouldn't the same standards for TLD introduction be applied equally and without discriminatory treatment? In the gTLD registry Statement (6 June 2007) it was noted that "There is strong possibility of significant impact on gTLD registries if IDN versions of existing ASCII gTLDs are introduced by registries different than the ASCII gTLD registries. Not only could there be user confusion in both email and web applications, but dispute resolution processes could be greatly complicated." http://www.gtldregistries.org/news/2007/2007-06-07-01.pdf Did anyone in the ALAC even discuss this consideration? I am rapidly reaching the view that the ALAC hasn't fully considered the implications of their Statement, that the ALAC hasn't taken the time to fully examine the issue, and that "unanimous statements" issued by this body are no more than idle pontifications bereft of any substantive consideration. Other bodies will spend months and years examining a particular issue. The ALAC, on the other hand, always seems to be in a rush to churn out a Statement after having received no more than a handful of comments over a very short time frame. You need to find a more considered way to arrive at recommendations. ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping