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
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