Thank you very much Hotta-san and Katrina for the hard work and detail explanation. It's very helpful to understand how ccNSO and SSAC would like to reach the wording agreement on the proposed mechanism of dealing with upper-case-lower-case issue.
Even so, at this point I am very sorry that I can only oppose the proposed resolution, but I am open to have continuous dialog with SSAC, even the Board IDN WG, on this particular issue. Therefore, I can accept that we postpone the decision until Abu Dhabi or later.
Three reasons behind my decision:
1) I do not see the letter actually reconcile the differences between ccNSO and SSAC. It recognizes / emphasizes the differences of ccNSO "lower-case-prevails" position and SSAC "conservatism prevails" position. Works are still to be done AFTER the confusing string delegated -- quoting p6 of the response "The level of the threshold, or the acceptable level of
residual risk when confusability is evaluated in context of the proposed mitigation
methods, needs to be determined."
2) I also believe that this resolution confuses the overall community by: a) offering "lower-case prevails" approach while ICANN is preparing a better LGR mechanism for future TLDs b) setting a new and potentially dangerous path of TLD delegation without considering the existing bundling / blocking approach (a conservative / inclusive approach) used by existing IDN ccTLD / gTLD programs.
3) On risk mitigation -- ICANN consult on experts AFTER delegation -- this could be even more time consuming and prolong any single application in the fast track process.
I hope these points make sense to you and other Councilors. Your further feedback and thoughts are very welcome!
Best regards,
Ching