Dear Hong, do you remember where frast-track comes from? It was about the ISO 3166 internationalization NWIP, only UK, IE and US supported. Let be reasonable : Vint Cerf is going to Chair the IETF/WG-IDNABIS to make sure they get the best out of IDNA RFC 4690 reviewed partly negatively. The proposition is IETF Last Call in November. This is why: 1) to best help the IETF process every ccTLD Manager and interested party should join the <http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update>http://www.alvestand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update mailing list and give their specific requirements and needs for exceptions, in their language of concern. 2) nothing should seriously be expected from IDNA and any further ccNSO testing process before mid-2009, once the real RFCs are produced. They favor but not know for sure yet if they will keep "xn--" domain names. When you consider RFC 5242 recent work by Harald Alvestrand and John Klensin you understand there is still a lot of work to carry in order to stabilize a common understanding of the Multilingual and Semantic Internet requirements. jfc At 06:32 07/04/2008, Hong Xue wrote:
I, personally, am not a fan of any fast-track. I can tell how messy the fast-track at ccNSO is. However, quite a few raised in many venues as far as I'm aware of the "unfairness" of letting ccTLDs go first on IDNs. The term "fast-track" was truthfully used.
GTLDs might not really need another track but it's got to be really fast. Given that we cannot even see a reliable timetable of implementation so far (first June 2008 at IGF 2007 and then October 2008 at ICANN New Delhi), I doubt whether ICANN is running as fast as it can to meet any deadline. But, of course, after so long time, I have been long disillusioned. I guess no matter I raise this or that, I'm only talking to myself.
Hong
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Depends on how you define "possible". If there was a strong will to do it, it would probably be possible. But given that: - this was not a GNSO recommendation nor has it been raised in other venues that I am aware of; - that the current plan/estimate is that we call for proposals by October 2008; - that staff are no doubt running as fast as they can to meet that deadline,
I find it hard to imagine that there is any possibility that this could happen short of a strong Board directive to make it so. And even then, it is not clear how much faster it will be than the generalized process.
Alan
At 06/04/2008 09:09 PM, Hong Xue wrote:
I'd like to know if a fast-track IDN gTLD implementation could be possible. It could only include a few scripts from the language communities with the most pressing need for IDNs.
Hong
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 12:22 AM, Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> wrote:
Hi Alan,
Will you be participating in the GNSO's new gTLD session in LA next week? <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04906.html>
Do you have the information you need from ALAC, including, I hope, our strong endorsement of a simple, rapid process to unblock the addition of new gTLDs?
Thanks, --Wendy
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org