In response to Cheryl's note (point 5) on the proposed fast track process for IDN's: The Internet Governance Project has today expressed some concerns about the ccTLDs plans to award themselves a bunch of new IDN TLDs without going through any real process -- see http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2007/12/5/3392238.html I share the point of view expressed therein. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Thank you for this link Danny, I read the view contained therein with great interest, and have taken the liberty of copying this reply to the ccNSO Chair, Chris Disspain, so that this information can also be accessed by others on the IDNC... Once it is officially finalised and formed... CLO -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Thursday, 6 December 2007 7:14 AM To: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: [At-Large] fast track process for IDN's In response to Cheryl's note (point 5) on the proposed fast track process for IDN's: The Internet Governance Project has today expressed some concerns about the ccTLDs' plans to award themselves a bunch of new IDN TLDs without going through any real process -- see http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2007/12/5/3392238.html I share the point of view expressed therein. ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ _______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Cheryl, As long as you are writing to Chris, please note my concern regarding the composition of the IDNCWG that has only room for two representatives from the GNSO... is it appropriate that (whatever selection is made) at least four GNSO constituencies will not have a voice in the process? regards, Danny --- Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl@hovtek.com.au> wrote:
Thank you for this link Danny, I read the view contained therein with great interest, and have taken the liberty of copying this reply to the ccNSO Chair, Chris Disspain, so that this information can also be accessed by others on the IDNC... Once it is officially finalised and formed...
CLO
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Thursday, 6 December 2007 7:14 AM To: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: [At-Large] fast track process for IDN's
In response to Cheryl's note (point 5) on the proposed fast track process for IDN's:
The Internet Governance Project has today expressed some concerns about the ccTLDs' plans to award themselves a bunch of new IDN TLDs without going through any real process -- see
http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2007/12/5/3392238.html
I share the point of view expressed therein.
____________________________________________________________________________
________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
_______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Hi Cheryl It's been discussed on the cc lists since yesterday. At Large did submit comments on the fast track process, but very few participated. Would it make sense to start a longer discussion on it in conjunction with the WG (now) so that when the report comes out from the WG, there'd be less work to do to respond quickly? Jacqueline
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Cheryl Langdon-Orr Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 16:47 To: 'Danny Younger'; 'At-Large Worldwide' Cc: 'Chris Disspain' Subject: Re: [At-Large] fast track process for IDN's
Thank you for this link Danny, I read the view contained therein with great interest, and have taken the liberty of copying this reply to the ccNSO Chair, Chris Disspain, so that this information can also be accessed by others on the IDNC... Once it is officially finalised and formed...
CLO
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Thursday, 6 December 2007 7:14 AM To: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: [At-Large] fast track process for IDN's
In response to Cheryl's note (point 5) on the proposed fast track process for IDN's:
The Internet Governance Project has today expressed some concerns about the ccTLDs' plans to award themselves a bunch of new IDN TLDs without going through any real process -- see http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2007/12/5/3392238.htm l
I share the point of view expressed therein.
_______________________________________________________________________ _____ ________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
_______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.15/1173 - Release Date: 12/5/2007 21:29
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
On 12/6/07, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> wrote:
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?
The statement you quoted was made on IDN ccTLD issues only according to the request from the Board. ALAC's comments on IDN gTLDs may be reflected in overall comments on the gTLD process. To talk about discrimination, it is discriminative to force non-English speakers to discuss IDNs in English. For those ASCII users, it is, of course, difficult to understand the urgency and necessity to implement the IDNs. We all know who the IDN audience is.
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?
Did you know Chunk has recently set up an IDN WG in gNSO and it is right time for ALAC to comment on this, rather than blaming anyone? 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.
The comments are very creative. ALAC's timely submission of the comments is now deemed a problem. We had so many rounds of public consultations and opened so many channels for the IDN users to participate. I cannot accept that it is completed "in a rush".
Re: "We had so many rounds of public consultations and opened so many channels for the IDN users to participate. I cannot accept that it is completed "in a rush". Yet when I look at the archive of the IDN WG I see no group discussions. Nor do I see Terms of Reference, a plan of action or policy choices enumerated that reflect considerations given to an interim or to an overall approach. What I see is vacillating and contradictory statements: one the one hand, the ALAC states (AL/2007/R/3): "no priority rights for new domain names shall derive from the possession of existing domain name strings as such", yet on the other hand it now seeks to give priority rights (the fast-track) for new domain names that derive from the possession of existing ccTLD domain name strings. It seems as if the ALAC is merely jumping on the latest bandwagon that comes across rather than taking principled stands. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
如果你没有记忆丧失的话，应当记得：你自己就参与了关于此文件形成过程中的多轮磋商和讨论。这些都记录在IDN-WG 邮件组中，关于行动计划、政策选择都清楚地记录在ALAC相关Wiki页面上。如此熟视无睹、矢口否认，无法侮辱所有参与者的智慧，只会令你自取其辱。 你使用母语所表现出的傲慢，更令所有传承了千年文明的所有知识分子哂笑。 On 12/7/07, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> wrote:
Re: "We had so many rounds of public consultations and opened so many channels for the IDN users to participate. I cannot accept that it is completed "in a rush".
Yet when I look at the archive of the IDN WG I see no group discussions. Nor do I see Terms of Reference, a plan of action or policy choices enumerated that reflect considerations given to an interim or to an overall approach.
What I see is vacillating and contradictory statements: one the one hand, the ALAC states (AL/2007/R/3): "no priority rights for new domain names shall derive from the possession of existing domain name strings as such", yet on the other hand it now seeks to give priority rights (the fast-track) for new domain names that derive from the possession of existing ccTLD domain name strings.
It seems as if the ALAC is merely jumping on the latest bandwagon that comes across rather than taking principled stands.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Waw, lii moy lan? Fatimata On Dec 8, 2007 9:13 PM, Hong Xue <hongxueipr@gmail.com> wrote:
如果你没有记忆丧失的话，应当记得：你自己就参与了关于此文件形成过程中的多轮磋商和讨论。这些都记录在IDN-WG 邮件组中，关于行动计划、政策选择都清楚地记录在ALAC相关Wiki页面上。如此熟视无睹、矢口否认，无法侮辱所有参与者的智慧，只会令你自取其辱。
你使用母语所表现出的傲慢，更令所有传承了千年文明的所有知识分子哂笑。
On 12/7/07, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> wrote:
Re: "We had so many rounds of public consultations and opened so many channels for the IDN users to participate. I cannot accept that it is completed "in a rush".
Yet when I look at the archive of the IDN WG I see no group discussions. Nor do I see Terms of Reference, a plan of action or policy choices enumerated that reflect considerations given to an interim or to an overall approach.
What I see is vacillating and contradictory statements: one the one hand, the ALAC states (AL/2007/R/3): "no priority rights for new domain names shall derive from the possession of existing domain name strings as such", yet on the other hand it now seeks to give priority rights (the fast-track) for new domain names that derive from the possession of existing ccTLD domain name strings.
It seems as if the ALAC is merely jumping on the latest bandwagon that comes across rather than taking principled stands.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
_______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
-- Fatimata Seye Sylla Presidente Bokk Jang Bokk Jeff Coordonnatrice ACSIS - Senegal BP : 22336 Dakar Senegal Tel : 221 33 864 4284 / 1301 552 8282 / 1 301 941 1288 email : fsylla@gmail.com fsylla@orange.sn
Danny Younger wrote:
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?
First, the IDNs on fast track are not 250, but an order of magnitude smaller, given the constraints of the fast track. Second, the unfairness comes from the fact that non-ASCII users have now zero TLDs, while the ASCII users have quite a few, and any delay in the introduction of IDN TLDs of any form perpetrates this injustice, which is also a discrimination against the vast majority of the population of the Earth Third, had we a solution for gTLDs that is easy enough to implement like the fast track, ICANN would be glad to push it, and I assume that ALAC would be glad to endorse it. However, just the problems of jurisdiction, authoritativeness, consesnsus of the community, etc. are so hard to solve in a global environment that there is reason to believe that they would take several years. Given point 2, ICANN has decided the lesser evil, ie. to go to an initial implementation limited to a subset of all the possible IDN TLDs, defining strict criteria. This said, do you *really* think that, how some gTLD registries provide services for some ccTLDs, the same thing would not happen with the fast track IDNs? Wanna bet that when we will go to the implementation, we will find also well known names? Cheers, Roberto
Certainly and to facilitate this, priority was given to setting up the ALAC IDN-WG space as the second priority after the GNSO-WG one (this was completed overnight) so we should get that very conversation started there (note all older IDN-WG pages have been copied across)... so there is both the IDN-WG list and this Wiki space to utilise... It is important to note however that, we also had *extensive* discussion and work in the APRALO on this matter with the resolution to support the APTLD's Fast Track for IDN's proposal, being made (which predated the ccNSO IDNC Proposal) so as one of the regions with countries most interested in and requiring IDN's APRALO has done far more regional work complementary to the ALAC-IDN WG process, and that work (including our RALO resolutions) were reported to the ALAC and we assume influenced its support of and comments on the fast track process... CLO -----Original Message----- From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam@jacquelinemorris.com] Sent: Friday, 7 December 2007 12:31 AM To: cheryl@hovtek.com.au; 'Danny Younger'; 'At-Large Worldwide' Cc: 'Chris Disspain' Subject: RE: [At-Large] fast track process for IDN's Hi Cheryl It's been discussed on the cc lists since yesterday. At Large did submit comments on the fast track process, but very few participated. Would it make sense to start a longer discussion on it in conjunction with the WG (now) so that when the report comes out from the WG, there'd be less work to do to respond quickly? Jacqueline
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Cheryl Langdon-Orr Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 16:47 To: 'Danny Younger'; 'At-Large Worldwide' Cc: 'Chris Disspain' Subject: Re: [At-Large] fast track process for IDN's
Thank you for this link Danny, I read the view contained therein with great interest, and have taken the liberty of copying this reply to the ccNSO Chair, Chris Disspain, so that this information can also be accessed by others on the IDNC... Once it is officially finalised and formed...
CLO
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Thursday, 6 December 2007 7:14 AM To: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: [At-Large] fast track process for IDN's
In response to Cheryl's note (point 5) on the proposed fast track process for IDN's:
The Internet Governance Project has today expressed some concerns about the ccTLDs' plans to award themselves a bunch of new IDN TLDs without going through any real process -- see http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2007/12/5/3392238.htm l
I share the point of view expressed therein.
_______________________________________________________________________ _____ ________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
_______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.15/1173 - Release Date: 12/5/2007 21:29
participants (6)
-
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Danny Younger -
Fatimata Seye Sylla -
Hong Xue -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
Roberto Gaetano