After reviewing the document I think we can proceed with a simple response commending the work and reiterating the importance of IDN IDN TLDs. Most of the document reiterates the recommendations from the IDNC (for the fast track) with some additional adjustments based on the learning over the few years of its implementation (which have actually been addressed and updated to the latest IDN Fast Track document). Edmon -----Original Message----- From: idn-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:idn-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 12:03 PM To: Carlton Samuels Cc: apralo; idn-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org; At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [IDN-WG] [APAC-Discuss] [At-Large] Draft Recommendations Overall Policy for the Selection of IDN ccTLD Strings PC Thanks Carlton. If there are views from At Large on this, please let us know as discussions are underway within the ALAC IDN Working Group via its mailing list. Kind Regards, Sala On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com

wrote:

Hi Sala: This is a question best answered by out IDN liaison. I shall be so advised.

Best, - Carlton

============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Dear All,

Thank you Matt for bringing it to our attention.

Does the ALAC need to make a statement on the Draft Recommendations Overall Policy for the Selection of IDN ccTLD Strings PC< https://community.icann.org/x/xYUoAg> is now open.

What are people's views on the Draft Recommendations?

Kind Regards

On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Matt Ashtiani <matt.ashtiani@icann.org

...

wrote:

...

Dear Edmon,

I am following up on the email below. Can you please advise if you think a Statement on this PC is necessary.

Regards,

Matt Ashtiani

At-Large Coordination Officer

ICANN

12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300

Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 USA

From: Matt Ashtiani <matt.ashtiani@icann.org<mailto: matt.ashtiani@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 3:46 PM To: Edmon Chung <edmon@isoc.hk<mailto:edmon@isoc.hk>> Cc: Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com<mailto: rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>>, "idn-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto: idn-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org>" <idn-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto: idn-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org>>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond < ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>>, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>> Subject: Draft Recommendations Overall Policy for the Selection of IDN ccTLD Strings PC

Dear Edmon,

Please note that the Draft Recommendations Overall Policy for the Selection of IDN ccTLD Strings PC<https://community.icann.org/x/xYUoAg

...

is now open. Please advise if you think a Statement on this PC is necessary.

Regards,

Matt Ashtiani

At-Large Coordination Officer

ICANN

12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300

Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 USA _______________________________________________ IDN-WG mailing list IDN-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg

IDN WG Wiki: https://st.icann.org/idn-policy/index.cgi?at_large_idn_policy

-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji

Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss

Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org

-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 _______________________________________________ IDN-WG mailing list IDN-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg IDN WG Wiki: https://st.icann.org/idn-policy/index.cgi?at_large_idn_policy

Hello everyone, Please find below a draft statement on the IDNccTLD String selection. The statement is meant to be short, commends the work and addresses the variants issue. Comments for fine tuning or addressing gaps are welcome. Best regards, Rinalia * * * * *DRAFT * *ALAC Statement on the Draft IDN ccTLD String Selection Criteria, Requirements and Processes Policy Recommendations* The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) commends the International Domain Names (IDN) country code Policy Development Process Working Group 1 for the comprehensiveness of its draft policy recommendations on the IDN ccTLD String Selection Criteria, Requirements and Processes for territories listed in the ISO 3166-1 list. We note that the recommendations are based on the previous work of the IDNC Working Group and we are pleased to see that the recommendations reflect the learning drawn from the implementation of the IDNccTLD Fast Track Process over the past few years. We wish to reiterate the significance and importance of IDNs, including IDN Top Level Domains (TLDs) at both the generic and country code levels. We believe that IDNs are crucial for enhancing diversity and multilingualism on the Internet. We observe that the draft recommendations do not address the issue of variant TLDs and instead contain a placeholder in Section J, which points out that issues pertaining to the management of such TLDs are still being discussed in the ICANN community and will be added later. We believe that the draft recommendations should indicate that the issue of variants is urgent and need to be addressed in a timely manner. Concurrently, the draft recommendations should also affirm that the outcomes of the variants discussion pertaining to the Label Generation Ruleset (LGR) for the Root Zone would be binding and applicable to all TLDs (including ccTLDs), given that the overarching principle of the LGR process is the security and stability of the Root Zone, which is shared by all Internet users. END

Hi Rinalia While I do not purport to be an expert on IDN issues, this statement reads very well, is very clear and sets out our remaining concerns well. Holly On 28/09/2012, at 1:17 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:

Hello everyone,

Please find below a draft statement on the IDNccTLD String selection. The statement is meant to be short, commends the work and addresses the variants issue. Comments for fine tuning or addressing gaps are welcome.

Best regards,

Rinalia

* *

* *

*DRAFT *

*ALAC Statement on the Draft IDN ccTLD String Selection Criteria, Requirements and Processes Policy Recommendations*

The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) commends the International Domain Names (IDN) country code Policy Development Process Working Group 1 for the comprehensiveness of its draft policy recommendations on the IDN ccTLD String Selection Criteria, Requirements and Processes for territories listed in the ISO 3166-1 list. We note that the recommendations are based on the previous work of the IDNC Working Group and we are pleased to see that the recommendations reflect the learning drawn from the implementation of the IDNccTLD Fast Track Process over the past few years.

We wish to reiterate the significance and importance of IDNs, including IDN Top Level Domains (TLDs) at both the generic and country code levels. We believe that IDNs are crucial for enhancing diversity and multilingualism on the Internet.

We observe that the draft recommendations do not address the issue of variant TLDs and instead contain a placeholder in Section J, which points out that issues pertaining to the management of such TLDs are still being discussed in the ICANN community and will be added later.

We believe that the draft recommendations should indicate that the issue of variants is urgent and need to be addressed in a timely manner. Concurrently, the draft recommendations should also affirm that the outcomes of the variants discussion pertaining to the Label Generation Ruleset (LGR) for the Root Zone would be binding and applicable to all TLDs (including ccTLDs), given that the overarching principle of the LGR process is the security and stability of the Root Zone, which is shared by all Internet users.

END _______________________________________________ ALAC-Internal mailing list ALAC-Internal@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal

ALAC Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)

At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org

*1) I support Hong: we should not lose sight of the wider purpose of IDNs "for the benefit of local IDN users".* * * *2) I propose a friendly addendum, in draft form:* *"Further, the attribution of IDNs should take into account the fact that some languages with a wide geographical distribution, beyond national borders, are not the sole property of one sovereign state alone. It follows, therefore, that due consideration should be given to protecting the rights of concerned language communities which, though falling outside the jurisdiction of one state, share with its inhabitants a common language or script".* * * *Jean-Jacques. * 2012/10/18 Hong Xue <hongxueipr@gmail.com>

Hi, this is the paragraph I promise to draft to supplement our Statement. Any revision or comment is heartily welcome.

Hong

_______________________

We note that confusing similarity of IDN ccTLD strings is assessed according to the appearance of the selected string sufficiently close to one or more other strings so that it is probable that a reasonable Internet user "who is unfamiliar with the script would perceive the strings to be the same or confuse one for the other", although "linguistic, technical, and visual perception factors" will be taken into consideration.

Notwithstanding the merit and rational of such assessment criterion, we concern that the assessment primarily based on appearance confusion of the strings deemed by the users unfamiliar with the script may not be consistent with the nature and purpose of IDN ccTLDs that is fundamentally put into use for the benefit of the local IDN users in pertinent ccTLD territories. Without sufficient linguistic factor being taken into account, some unreasonable results may occur. For example, an IDN ccTLD that is assessed as not confusingly similar by the user "who is unfamiliar with the script" may well be deemed confusingly similar by the local IDN users; vice verse.

We do hope this issue could be addressed in the policy making process and more consultation with the IDN communities in the ccTLD territories could be done.

the assessment of confusing similarity depends on amongst other things

in developing the method and criteria.

...

*ALAC Statement on the Draft IDN ccTLD String Selection Criteria, Requirements and Processes Policy Recommendations*

The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) commends the International Domain Names (IDN) country code Policy Development Process Working Group 1 for

the

...

comprehensiveness of its draft policy recommendations on the IDN ccTLD String Selection Criteria, Requirements and Processes for territories listed in the ISO 3166-1 list. We note that the recommendations are based on the previous work of the IDNC Working Group and we are pleased to see that the recommendations reflect the learning drawn from the implementation of the IDNccTLD Fast Track Process over the past few years.

We wish to reiterate the significance and importance of IDNs, including IDN Top Level Domains (TLDs) at both the generic and country code levels. We believe that IDNs are crucial for enhancing diversity and multilingualism on the Internet.

We observe that the draft recommendations do not address the issue of variant TLDs and instead contain a placeholder in Section J, which points out that issues pertaining to the management of such TLDs are still being discussed in the ICANN community and will be added later.

We believe that the draft recommendations should indicate that the issue of variants is urgent and need to be addressed in a timely manner. Concurrently, the draft recommendations should also affirm that the outcomes of the variants discussion pertaining to the Label Generation Ruleset (LGR) for the Root Zone would be binding and applicable to all TLDs (including ccTLDs), given that the overarching principle of the LGR process is the security and stability of the Root Zone, which is shared by all Internet users.

END _______________________________________________ IDN-WG mailing list IDN-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg

IDN WG Wiki: https://st.icann.org/idn-policy/index.cgi?at_large_idn_policy

-- Professor Dr. Hong Xue Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China _______________________________________________ IDN-WG mailing list IDN-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg

IDN WG Wiki: https://st.icann.org/idn-policy/index.cgi?at_large_idn_policy

Hi Rinalia Just a quick response... I wholeheartedly agree with the ALAC comments, especially that IDN ccTLDs acknowledge the diversity of the growing internet user base, and that their purpose is to encourage the use of the internet for their benefit within their own ccTLD environments. It also promotes a greater understanding of this diversity within the wider user community. This is recognised in schools nowadays, even in the Pacific, where encouragement to learn languages that use scripts other than our own is widespread. The world is getting smaller. Our youth are growing up with a more global mindset and will not have any problem with what we are establishing today. Maureen -----Original Message----- From: apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rinalia Abdul Rahim Sent: Tuesday, 30 October 2012 4:42 a.m. To: No name; ALAC Working List Cc: APRALO; At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] [IDN-WG] [At-Large] Draft Recommendations Overall Policy for the Selection of IDN ccTLD Strings PC Dear IDN WG and ALAC, Please find below the revised statement on the* "Draft IDN ccTLD String Selection Criteria, Requirements and Processes Policy Recommendations" *that incorporates additions proposed during the Toronto meeting. Suggestions for further amendments *must be received by Friday (November 2nd)* for the ALAC to commence a vote in time to meet the Reply Period deadline on November 9th. Thanks. Rinalia Abdul Rahim* * ** * * * * *ALAC Statement on the Draft IDN ccTLD String Selection Criteria, Requirements and Processes Policy Recommendations* The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) commends the International Domain Names (IDN) country code Policy Development Process Working Group 1 for the comprehensiveness of its draft policy recommendations on the IDN ccTLD String Selection Criteria, Requirements and Processes for territories listed in the ISO 3166-1 list. We note that the recommendations are based on the previous work of the IDNC Working Group and we are pleased to see that the recommendations reflect the learning drawn from the implementation of the IDNccTLD Fast Track Process over the past few years. We observe that the draft recommendations do not address the issue of variant TLDs and instead contain a placeholder in Section J, which points out that issues pertaining to the management of such TLDs are still being discussed in the ICANN community and will be added later. We believe that the draft recommendations should indicate that the issue of variants is urgent and need to be addressed in a timely manner. Concurrently, the draft recommendations should also affirm that the outcomes of the variants discussion pertaining to the Label Generation Ruleset (LGR) for the Root Zone would be binding and applicable to all TLDs (including ccTLDs), given that the overarching principle of the LGR process is the security and stability of the Root Zone, which is shared by all Internet users. We note with concern that the draft recommendations consider selected IDN ccTLD strings to be confusingly similar based on their appearance to "a reasonable Internet user who is unfamiliar with the script" although "linguistic, technical, and visual perception factors" will be taken into consideration. Notwithstanding the merit and rationale for this assessment criterion, an assessment on confusing similarity based primarily on the appearance of selected strings to users unfamiliar with the script may not be consistent with the nature and purpose of IDN ccTLDs, which are fundamentally introduced for the use and benefit of local IDN users in pertinent ccTLD territories. Without taking into account sufficient linguistic factors, problematic results may occur. For example, an IDN ccTLD that is assessed as not confusingly similar by a user "who is unfamiliar with the script" may well be deemed confusingly similar by the local IDN user and vice versa. We believe that this particular issue can be addressed in the policy making process through more consultations with the IDN communities in implicated ccTLD territories. Finally, we wish to reiterate the significance and importance of IDNs, including IDN Top Level Domains (TLDs) at both the generic and country code levels. IDNs are crucial for enhancing diversity and multilingualism on the Internet. Towards this end, the attribution of IDNs should take into account the fact that some languages have a wide geographical distribution that go beyond national borders and are thus not the sole property of one sovereign state alone. It follows, therefore, that due consideration should be given to protecting the rights of concerned language communities which, though falling outside the jurisdiction of one nation state, share with its inhabitants a common language or script. END _______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org

Just quick comment on IDN ccTLD operators: I discuss this issue with Tina Dam (Evan just mentioned her), and she gave me the link http://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/fast-track/string-evaluation-completio... There are 30 IDN ccTLDs in it. 16 were requested by existing ccTLD managers. In all other cases, including Ukraine, it is written - by "Government entity". I would like to stress out once again, that during Fast Track procedure all this information was closed. Now it is open, and a lot of issues have to be discuss. Is there any mechanism of verification of such information? What is the role of ICANN, Board, GAC, ccNSO, ALAC in dispute resolutions regarding possible conflicts between existing ccTLD managers and "Government entity" (I use quatation marks first of all for Ukrainian IDN ccTLD)? In Ukraine the problem of "confusing similarity" is of crucial importance (all Cyrillic symbols for .укр have identical symbols in Latin alphabet). How to deal with this problem just now? Best regards, Oksana 2012/10/30 Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>:

I hope my intervention at the public forum on this issue was helpful. I recall Tina Dam from .music (and former ICANN staffer) going up to say "I love IDNs, *however*, people aroiund me are saying ....". I wanted to ensure the Board was immediately reminded of the broad support for IDN prioritization within At-Large.

Not that I have been deeply involved in At-Large IDN policy, but IMO Tina's comment could not let sit unanswered.

And I too support Hong's and Jean-Jacques' comments.

- Evan _______________________________________________ ALAC-Internal mailing list ALAC-Internal@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal

ALAC Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)

At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org