Thanks, Roberto. Surely we are still absorbing the information and are by no means to defend it. In my understanding, the proposal is an approach of "crossing the river by groping the stone under foot". CCTLD managers want to develop the IDN policy while experimentally implementing IDNs. It has a lot of advantage as well as defects. But I don't believe the proposal may simply be read as a grab.
"Existing ccTLD operators" should not, of course, automatically grab an IDN TLDs. Neither are the existing gTLD operators.
Hong
don't believe the paper is read "each existing ccTLD operator"
On 6/27/07, Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote:
I would like to make sure that "each existing ccTLD" does not get confused with "each existing ccTLD operator".
As I also discussed this morning with the ccNSO council, y worry is that if we establish an automatic mechanism by which an operator gets a sort of IDN version of its ASCII ccTLD, we establish a precedent for a claim by the gTLD operators to run the IDN versions of the gTLDs.
Cheers,
Roberto
Many thanks for Siavash's addition. If both APTLD and CENTR endorse this, this proposal would be influential.
Hong