Edmon (and other GNSO participants in the IDNC), Thanks for providing this. Let me start off by saying that I personally believe that a lot of good work has gone into this; with that in mind though, I will focus only on some some questions and comments I have. Section 3 'C: Purpose of Fast Track is to meet pressing demand' * I find it interesting that 'pressing demand' will be measured by 'readiness of the selected delegate and relevant stakeholders in the territory to meet the requirements to introduce an IDN ccTLD'. * If that is ultimately what is decided, am I correct in concluding that any ccTLD organization that is ready will be deemed to have a pressing demand? * Sorry for the unrealistic example and one that will not be allowed because it is a non-Latin script but I think it illustrates my point: If deNIC demonstrates it is ready to offer name registration services for .deutschland, then they will have satisfied the criterion; is that accurate? So they would be deemed to establish pressing demand even if there isn't any. * The same flawed logic could be used for a non-Latin script. * It might make more sense to have a criterion of readiness instead of pressing demand if that is the way it will be measured. E: The proposed string and delegation request should be non-contentious within the territory * I won't restate the problems you are already aware of with regard to the definition of non-contentious. Section 4 'Stage 1: Preparing for the Fast Track in Territory' * How is a delegate selected? * Who selects a delegate? * Is that left totally up to the local community? "Requirements relating to the script For purposes of the Fast Track a non-Latin script is considered to be a script which identifiers are represented with characters in Unicode not being ASCII, i.e. [a- z, 0-9]." * This definition may need to be refined. As I read it, it could be interpreted to mean that German, Spanish and French are based on non-Latin scripts because they each have non-ASCII characters. 'Technical Requirements' * In the 1st & 7th bullets, what is meant by 'IDNA2008'? * Does it refer to the yet to be revised IDNA protocol? * If so, is it accurate to assume that fast track ccIDNs will not be introduced until the IDNA protocol revision is finished? Implementation Questions * In reading this document, I can't help but think that implementing these recommendations is going to be complex and time-consuming not unlike implementation of the new gTLD recommendations. Do you agree? * Have there been any discussions about implementation? How it would happen? How long it might take? etc. Thanks for all of the time each of you are spending on this work. Chuck Gomes ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 3:04 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] FW: [ccnso-idncctld] Draft Final Report Attached is the draft IDNC final report by Bart and Chris Edmon From: owner-ccnso-idncctld@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-idncctld@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bart Boswinkel Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 9:05 PM To: ccnso-idncctld@icann.org Subject: [ccnso-idncctld] Draft Final Report Dear All, Included is the first version of the draft Final Report. To be discussed at the next call. The next IDNC WG call is scheduled for Wednesday 11 June 2008, at noon (12 am) UTC. Those members of the IDNC WG who think that Principle E should be re-worded and/or there should be an objection procedure, please provide wording to be inserted. In the draft is a section for minority views. It would be most helpful if the wording could be provided two day in advance of the next IDNC WG call. The intention is to post the draft Final Report on the ICANN Website by 13 June 2008. Kind regards, Bart