On December 14, 2007, CCNSO published the IDNC working group charter http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/idnc-charter.htm . A "Topic list for Initial Report on introduction IDN ccTLD under fast track" was circulated in the working group list at the same time. 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 outcomes of the IDN ccPDP. A list of topics is drafted to form the structure of discussion on the mechanisms of fast-track implementation. Comment and input are sought on the relevance of the topics listed and whether there are additional topics. Comments need to be received by 16 January. So far, comments on the chair of the working group, working process and nature of fast track approach have been sent to the list.

 

The comments may be on 2 specific mechanisms:
 

1. A mechanism for the selection of the IDN ccTLD string;

 

Topics:
o What are the requirements regarding the status of the script/language in the territory to be used in the IDN ccTLD string?
o Is there a limit to the number of scripts per territory to be used as an IDN ccTLD under the fast track approach? Should it be limited to one (1) per territory or some other number?
o Who should be able to propose a string for the territory?
o Who is required to endorse a string once proposed?
o What are the criteria for such a string to be acceptable under the fast track (for example: meaningful representation in a selected script of the name of the territory or recognized abbreviation as
listed on ISO 3166 -1)
o Will a proposed string be 'evaluated' against criteria? If so, who will the 'evaluator' be and who will appoint them?
o Assuming a string and script are selected in accordance with proposed criteria, should there be an objection procedure? If so, who should be eligible to object? On what grounds? What is the
impact of an objection (for example non-eligibility under fast track)?

 

2. A mechanism to designate an IDN ccTLD manager

 

Topics:
o Should any criteria specific to IDNs be taken into consideration for the designation of an IDN ccTLD manager?
o Are there any specific requirements regarding the technical and operational readiness of the eligible IDN ccTLD manager?
o Should there be a proven track record for running a TLD operationally?
o Should the eligible entity have experience (operationally or experimentally) with running IDN in the relevant script at the second and /or higher levels?
o Should adherence to the IDNA protocol and related requirements be ensured? How should this be ensured?
o Is the registration policy of the IDN ccTLD relevant in relation to the IDNA protocols and related requirements? If so how is adherence to such required policy ensured?

 

 

I'm strongly suggesting the new ALAC IDN WG under the new leadership to submit the comments on this important matter. The most imminent and serious concern is the relationship between the fast-track and long-term approach. The dilemma is that an oversimplified procedure will not produce a sustainable solution while a complicated procedure will not be fast! It's been painfully felt the lack of overall coordination between IDN gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs. It would be essential to avoid the problem in ccTLD name space.

 

Hong