- IDN-WG - lists.icann.org

Re: [IDN-WG] Draft ALAC Statement on the IDN Fast Track Draft Implementation Plan
by JFC Morfin Nov. 4, 2008

Nov. 4, 2008

At 09:11 04/11/2008, Hong Xue wrote: >Anyone who is >interested in getting involved in the At-Large IDN policy work may join the >IDN Working Group list at >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg_atlarge-lists.icann.… >Hong Dear Hong Xue, I am subscribed to that list, but I never get a mail from it? jfc

1 0

Draft ALAC Statement on the IDN Fast Track Draft Implementation Plan
by At-Large Staff Nov. 4, 2008

Nov. 4, 2008

Dear Community: As you may be aware, a public consultation has been opened on a draft Implementation Plan for Fast Track IDN deployment. The consultation may be found here: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-23oct08-en.htm In order to facilitate drafting, ALAC IDN Liaison Hong Xue has compiled a draft statement. It may be found here: https://st.icann.org/idn-policy/index.cgi?fast_track_idn_implementation_draf t_statement Comments from the wider At-Large community are welcomed and encouraged. The At-Large IDN Policy homepage is at https://st.icann.org/idn-policy/index.cgi?at_large_idn_policy. Anyone who is interested in getting involved in the At-Large IDN policy work may join the IDN Working Group list at http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg_atlarge-lists.icann.o rg. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Helene Bouchoms ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

2 1

Consolidated Overview of Public Comments on the Final Report of the IDNC Working Group Available for Review
by At-Large Staff Sept. 18, 2008

Sept. 18, 2008

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-17sep08-en.htm Consolidated Overview of Public Comments on the Final Report of the IDNC Working Group Available for Review 17 September 2008 As part of its commitment to keep the community full informed on public policy matters of significant interest, the ICANN staff has prepared and posted a consolidated overview of public comments submitted on the Final Report of the IDNC Working Group on ccTLD Fast Track Mechanisms. That report, "Consolidated overview, Public comments on Final Report IDNC WG" can be found at either of the following links: In the Public Comment forum at http://forum.icann.org/lists/idn-cctld-fast-track/msg00032.html Or directly at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/idnc-wg-final-report-comments-12sep08 .pdf Background: The IDNC WG was charted by ICANN's Board to develop and report on feasible methods, if any, that would enable the introduction, in a timely manner and in a manner that ensures the continued security and stability of the Internet, of a limited number of non-contentious IDN ccTLDs, associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes (both the official code list of ISO 3166-1 and the list of reserved ISO 3166-1 code elements) (popularly known as "the fast track"), while the overall IDN ccTLD policy is being developed. The IDNC WG submitted its final report to the Board on 26 June 2008. Comments on the report were received through 15 August 2008. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

DRAFT: ICANN AtLarge position on new gTLDs
by Lutz Donnerhacke Sept. 8, 2008

Sept. 8, 2008

The following text is the result of an intensive discussion at the ICANN Studienkreis meeting in Helsinki, Finland, 5/9/2008 Please discuss it in the content in the approbriate mailing list. I'd recommend gtld-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org as the right place. Please note that I will not take part in this discussion, due to my upcoming holidays. I feel, it might be better to stay away from commenting the comments for a few weeks. ****************************************************************************** DRAFT: ICANN AtLarge position on new gTLDs gtld-community-reception-draft-Sep2008 Lutz Donnerhacke, EURALO Abstract ~~~~~~~~ The community clearly welcomes the new gTLDs especially the IDN version, because it will drop the entrance level by providing a more concise view. The proposed gTLD process is focused on commerical interests only, which causes substantial fears in the community. But the IDN fasttrack proposal for ccTLD is explicitly supported. Futhermore this draft tries to start discussion about medium term importance of domain names. Based on the current community experience, we expect the DNS to be faced out in favor of overlay networks which obtain their names from the dynamically shaped digital neighbourhoods. Community expectation in new gTLDs ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Internationalization ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Most people in the world use languages with non-latin glyphes. If they have a computer, they use a localized user interface. But if they try to use the internet, they are faced with addresses they can't read, type, and spell. The introduction of IDNs for TLDs solves this issue. From the user point of view, it's initally enough the have a TLD in their own language and script available. Starting from such consistent user interface, the whole web can be explored. Using the fasttrack proposal ccTLD registries are allowed to register common names for regions in their regional used language. AtLarge clearly considers multiple names using multiple languages for multiple regions of a single state as the right solution. There are still open issues regarding which names should be allowed and who can object a naming proposal. We do not see a consistent way to assign a name of an international region to a single ccTLD registry, i.e. the Korean word "Korea" to North- or South-Korea. Another open problem is to assign political controverse regions, i.e. the arabic names of Palestinean regions can't be assigned to the ccTLD registry of Israel. There is a need for really applicable disput resolution policy even for already existing ccTLDs, i.e. the historic TLD .eh for the western Sahara which will be used by a regional community. Generic top level domain names ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ The current domain name system requries each community has to choose a parent domain name to become visible in the network. Usually the parent domain is the ccTLD of the state, the users of the community live in. For several communities, that's unacceptable, mainly for political reasons. Choosing a gTLD might be as difficult due to internationalizing effects. Using an own TLD for such a community may solve the serious problems and is the prefered option of AtLarge. There is a need to define strict rules for such a community TLD, including the immanent conflicts with existing TLDs as well as deal with objection resolution. Communities of suppressed minorities should be protected from any veto of there suppressors. The current proposal for opening the root zone for various new gTLDs deals mainly with the commercial interests. Of course, the community has the right to object any proposal and can avoid an auction when applying for own TLDs. We do not consider this rights to be sufficient, because any application for TLDs will be prohibited by the high fees for ICANN and consulting companies in the case of dispute resolutions. That's why We consider the current propsal as an preference of commericial interests over community needs. What will be a "name resolution" in next century? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Up to the late 1980er years data flows using bang addresses naming a hop by hop route through the Internet, so names does have a local scope. Relicts of this time are still used in Usenet News, last mile e-mail delivery (mailertables, forwarding, polling), and remote machine access through private networks or VPNs. With the increased usage of FTP, SMTP, and HTTP, the data flow changed to direct end-to-end delivery. To find the address of the destination, DNS becomes the dominant lookup mechanism. This delivery method created the current, common understanding of the Internet. The prominent sites of this time, like funet.fi, are remembered by the people even if the machines are vanished since years. In the last ten years, content overtake the role of DNS. Users are entering everything they need into a search engine and select from the results. So the DNS names are pushed into the underground, they are used like IP addresses. Even complex names does not stop people from visiting the content. Webbrowsers became a part of the IP stack in the common user experience: They simply click, but use some prominent domains as shortcuts. Now social networks attract users more and more. User does spend their time in digital communties. Static content is degraded to the always available background (only to reference). Names are scoped by those networks, like names in file sharing networks: They address the community content, not the machines the content comes from. Name duplication is solved by neighbour metrics, "local" names are prefered over "regional" and those over "global" ones. Search engines are used as final fallback. With the implementation of peer2peer name resolution into the operating systems, like Bonjour for Apple OSX or the Resolver in Microsoft Vista/2008, content addresses are available for all applications on the system: If you open the word processor to write an letter, you will start with the template from your current digital network: Your default company template for the home office id as well as the private template for a letter to the bank when using the private id. Using multiple IDs at the same time will be easy, they are just a keypress away. The definition of neighbourhood for name clash resolution becomes dynamic. Google condensed the current user expectations into their bowser: Users will start from the recently used stage. So the upcoming name resolver library in the operating system IP stack will collect usage statistics per digital id to define a constantly changing neighbourhood. I.e if you travel, your expected association of the name "hotel" will be depend on your last hotel searchs as well as your current geolocation. Your expected outcome of "news" might stay in your home domicile but changes to the geographic region the longer you stay there. So the medium term forecast of Internet usage does not need the DNS system as the primary user interface anymore. DNS names will be used like IP addresses today, they will move into network drivers of operating systems. We do not claim that this forecast is correct, but like to start a discussion on possible medium term scenarios. Depending on this forecast we are able to allow new gTLDs liberatly or keep it a restriced ressource. Lutz Donnerhacke EURALO ******************************************************************************

1 0

DRAFT: ICANN AtLarge position on new gTLDs
by Lutz Donnerhacke Sept. 8, 2008

Sept. 8, 2008

I just send a full article to the GTLD-WG. It is the result of an intensive discussion at the ICANN Studienkreis meeting in Helsinki, Finland, 5/9/2008 Please read and discuss it on gtld-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org ****************************************************************************** DRAFT: ICANN AtLarge position on new gTLDs gtld-community-reception-draft-Sep2008 Lutz Donnerhacke, EURALO Abstract ~~~~~~~~ The community clearly welcomes the new gTLDs especially the IDN version, because it will drop the entrance level by providing a more concise view. The proposed gTLD process is focused on commerical interests only, which causes substantial fears in the community. But the IDN fasttrack proposal for ccTLD is explicitly supported. Futhermore this draft tries to start discussion about medium term importance of domain names. Based on the current community experience, we expect the DNS to be faced out in favor of overlay networks which obtain their names from the dynamically shaped digital neighbourhoods. [...] ******************************************************************************

1 0

Testing
by Nick Ashton-Hart Feb. 21, 2008

Feb. 21, 2008

To ensure the list is working properly. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Public Comments Requested on Initial Draft Fast-Track Mechanism for , Introduction of a Limited Number of IDN ccTLDs
by Nick Ashton-Hart Feb. 3, 2008

Feb. 3, 2008

Public Comments Requested on Initial Draft Fast-Track Mechanism for Introduction of a Limited Number of IDN ccTLDs <http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-01feb08.htm> <http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-31jan08.htm> This is a first Discussion Draft of the Initial Report of the IDNC Working Group (IDNC WG). It is published for comment and input from the ICANN community. The Introduction of a Limited Number of IDN ccTLDs Under A Fast Track Mechanism: Draft Initial Report of the IDNC Working Group [PDF, 43K] http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/draft-initial-report-idnc-wg-01feb08.p… Public Comments reqeusted by 26 February 2008 This is a first Discussion Draft of the Initial Report of the IDNC Working Group (IDNC WG). It is published for comment and input from the ICANN community. This document has not been signed-off on by the IDNC Working Group whose members will continue to provide their own comments and input during this consultation period. The IDNC WG was charted by ICANN's Board to develop and report on feasible methods, if any, that would enable the introduction, in a timely manner and in a manner that ensures the continued security and stability of the Internet, of a limited number of non-contentious IDN ccTLDs, associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes (both the official code list of ISO 3166-1 and the list of reserved ISO 3166-1 code elements), while the overall IDN ccTLD policy is being developed. The scope of the IDNC WG is limited to developing feasible methods (for the introduction of a limited number of IDN ccTLDs) that do not pre-empt the policy outcomes of the IDN cc Policy Development Process (ccPDP) for which an Issue Report is currently being prepared. In preparing the ccPDP Issue Report, the Issue Manager will identify policies, procedures, and/or by-laws that need to be reviewed and, if necessary revised, in connection with the development and implementation of any IDN ccTLD policy. Further, the Issue Manager will take into account the joint ccNSO GAC Issues Paper, input from other ICANN Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees, public comments, technical limitations and requirements including the IDNA Guidelines, and any other matters that the Issue Manager considers to be of relevance. Under the IDNC WG charter, in considering feasible fast track methods, the IDNC WG must take into account and be guided by: * The overarching requirement to preserve the security and stability of the DNS; * Compliance with the IDNA protocols; * Input and advice from the technical community in respect to the implementation of IDNs; * Current practices for the delegation of ccTLDs. The fast track approach requires two specific mechanisms which are addressed in this report: 1. A mechanism for the selection of the IDN ccTLD string (See Section 3 of the report); and 2. A mechanism to designate an IDN ccTLD manager (See Section 4 of the report). The purpose of this report is to inform and report to the community on the topics and issues as identified by the IDNC WG that need to be considered in developing each of the two mechanisms, and to seek input and comments on them. This report, and the comments received, will be used to structure and propose potential mechanisms in the next phase of the fast track (See Section 5 of the report for the Interim Report Schedule). As stated above, the outcome of the fast track cannot pre- empt the outcome of the ccPDP. All of the issues/topics raised regarding the fast track mechanisms also are being raised under the ccPDP. Thus, the solutions reached for the purposes of the fast track, out of necessity, have to be as limited as possible. Comments on this report are encouraged to be submitted by 26 February 2008 via email to idn-cctld-fast-track(a)icann.org. An archive of all comments received will be publicly posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/idn-cctld-fast-track/ . Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Fwd: [At-Large] Draft Initial Report with Schedule updated
by Hong Xue Feb. 2, 2008

Feb. 2, 2008

Dear Nick, It might be helpful to review our email exchanges. Here is the chronicle (as shown in the emails below): 1) You asked if there was any translation plan at IDNC WG, 2) I raised the translation issue at IDNC WG, as you advised (see the message below); 3) Chris then referred the translation back to ALAC (obviously there was no plan for translation at IDNC WG); 4) I, in the belief that there be translation service available at ALAC side anytime, emailed to you and cced to the WG that translation could be arranged. Of course, you are not staffing for ccNSO. I'm well aware of that. I'm not copying this message to WG list to avoid further confusion. But I still cannot see what wrong I did in the whole process. Hong ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> Date: Jan 29, 2008 4:24 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] Draft Initial Report with Schedule updated To: Hong Xue <hongxueipr(a)gmail.com> Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au> Thanks for that; I will check. Note that the IDNC can ask that public comment periods and the documents they relate to be arranged in non-English languages. It would be far more effective for the two of you to bring up the working languages, if you will, for the IDNC consultations than for me to do so at my end. I have warned colleagues internally that such a request may be forthcoming. In particular, since the initial set of fast-track IDNs is a fairly known quantity, would you wish to see the consultations available in those languages / scripts? Or a subset of them? On 29 Jan 2008, at 02:36, Hong Xue wrote: > I'm not aware of any translation plan of IDNC. But you may double > check with Bart. > > Hong > > > > On 1/29/08, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton(a)fastmail.net> wrote: >> OK - and thanks :) >> >> Is the IDNC going to declare a set of languages for public >> consultations do you know? If so, it would be VERY helpful to know >> that as soon as possible for internal reasons (I'm fighting a bit >> of a >> battle related to translations). >> >> On 28 Jan 2008, at 08:44, Hong Xue wrote: >> >>> Not until the interim report comes out. The present one is only a >>> summary of topics plus a work plan. >>> >>> Hong >>> >>> >>> On 1/28/08, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton(a)fastmail.net> wrote: >>>> Does this need to be translated? >>>> >>>> On 28 Jan 2008, at 03:17, Hong Xue wrote: >>>> >>>>> Please see attached the updated schedule of IDNC WG, though the >>>>> text >>>>> of the document is unchanged from the draft for comment sent to >>>>> the WG >>>>> on 16 January. Now, we got a bit more time for comments. >>>>> >>>>> Hong >>>>> <Draft Initial Report for WG >>>>> v3.doc>_______________________________________________ >>>>> ALAC mailing list >>>>> ALAC(a)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 >>>> >>>> >> >>

1 0

IDN // towards a call for inputs
by Fatimata Seye Sylla Feb. 2, 2008

Feb. 2, 2008

Dear Colleagues, After reading the files Jacqueline has sent (the IDNC - GNSO Msg to ICANN Board 8 Jan 07 and the Board letter on GNSO resolution) and Nick s mail regarding the extension of the input period into Issues Report for the IDN ccPDP, I would like to suggest that we work out 2 calls for input to the ALAC community for 1. Issues Report for the IDN ccPDP 2. Following GNSO recommendation, statement of work of an independent working group to be created on fast track IDN TLDs or new gTLDs Please let me know what you think about this before we proceed on drafting the call (s) together, Thanks. Best, Fatimata -- 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(a)gmail.com fsylla(a)orange.sn

5 9

Successful Evaluations of .test IDN TLDs
by Nick Ashton-Hart Feb. 1, 2008

Feb. 1, 2008

Successful Evaluations of .test IDN TLDs http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-31jan08.htm 31 January 2008 In October 2006, ICANN engaged Autonomica AB of Stockholm, Sweden, to develop, conduct, and report on the results of laboratory testing of internationalized top-level domains in a setting corresponding to the public root. On 7 March 2007 the result of the laboratory tests were reported successfully. The laboratory technical test was one of the prerequisites to eventual insert internationalized top level labels in the root zone, which subsequently were done and the associated test facility was launched. Following the project plan, Autonomica then conducted a replication of the laboratory test, live in the DNS. Quoting from their report: "Autonomica AB has, under a contract with ICANN, investigated whether the addition of top level domains containing encoded internationalized characters (so called IDNs) to the public root zone for testing purposes has any impact on the iterative mode resolvers used to look up the information. No impact at all could be detected. All involved systems behaved exactly as expected." Therefore, the Automomica test raised no issue regarding the ability of root-severs and iterative mode resolvers to handle IDN TLD queries. Details of the test result can be found here [PDF, 129K]. http://www.icann.org/topics/idn/idn-report-07jan08.pdf For any questions or request for additional details of the test design and result please contact Tina Dam at tina.dam(a)icann.org. For further information around ICANN's IDN Program please visit http://www.icann.org/topics/idn -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0