ALAC Response to the VIP Proposed Project Plan and Next Steps
Dear IDN WG, We had a webinar today where the VIP Team re-presented their work. It was a pity that many of our WG members could not participate. *They made one point of clarification regarding the treatment of communities who consider themselves ready to implement IDN Variants - that it would only happen after the label generation toolset work is done. In their project plan this can only begin mid of FY13. * ALAC is requested to make its response/comment to the proposed plan before the end of next week so that the VIP Team can incorporate our input in their next steps. Below is my draft attempt at a response (based on my limited understanding) so that we can meet this deadline. Note: I draw heavily from Edmon's previous drafts before and after Costa Rica, with tweaks and adjustments based on the clarification made during today's webinar. Gaps: 1. The issue on COST requires more content and justification - Tijani, perhaps you have some ideas. Otherwise, we might have to drop this aspect. 2. Would be good if reference to communities who are ready to implement IDN Variants could be expanded beyond the Chinese case if they are available - Cheryl, any thoughts? Next Steps: 1. Staff - pls upload to a wikipage. 2. Edmon - pls check overall content. 3. Other WG members - please contribute. Note: I have not proofread this draft. Thanks. Rinalia [Draft] ALAC Response to the VIP Proposed Project Plan for Next Steps *Acknowledgement of VIP Team Achievement* The ALAC congratulates the IDN VIP team upon the successful completion of the case study reports and the final integrated report. We also wish to record our appreciation for the outreach efforts of the VIP Team aimed at enhancing the community’s understanding about the outcome of its work to date as well as the thinking/framework that guided its work and the processes entailed. *Significance of IDNs and Implications on Future Work of the VIP Team* The ALAC reiterates its continued recognition of the significance and importance of IDNs, including IDN TLDs in enhancing diversity and embracing multilingualism on the Internet. We believe that every culture and every language is unique and that the implementation of IDN and IDN Variants would serve to make the Internet more inclusive and representative of the world that we live in. Given the importance of the work, the ALAC calls on the VIP Team to ensure that the conduct of its future work is accountable, transparent and does not duplicate work that has or is being done within or without the ICANN community. Towards this end, we urge the VIP Team to continuously inform the community on its work and progress, and to draw synergize wherever possible by leveraging on the work and expertise of the wider Internet community. The ALAC is pleased with the VIP Team’s interest in engaging the wider Internet community, which the Team expressed during the ICANN meeting Costa Rica in March 2012. In doing so, We request that the VIP Team maintain a high level of transparency and clarify the project basis for engaging consultants vs. community volunteers vs. ICANN staff. *Comments on the Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) Variant Issues Project (VIP) Proposed Project Plan * *Approach* The approach taken by the VIP Team is a standardized, universal and comprehensive one, which has merit in that it takes into consideration aspects of fairness and security. The approach hinges crucially upon the expectation that it is possible to develop a comprehensive codepoint repertoire and label generation rule-set within a specific timeframe. The VIP Team has been careful to clarify to the ALAC during a webinar on 11 April 2012 that until the codepoint repertoire and label-generation rule-set are complete, the implementation of any IDN Variant would not be considered regardless of the level of community readiness. The ALAC concern regarding the VIP Team’s approach is as follows: 1. The standardized is contrary to the community consensus on appropriate approaches to the IDN Variant issues, which are highly diverse. A standardized approach also discriminates against communities who consider themselves ready to implement IDN Variants. 2. Assuming that it is possible to develop a comprehensive codepoint repertoire and label generation rule-set within the period specified in the proposed project plan, the VIP Team will only be ready to work with communities who can demonstrate that they are ready to implement IDN Variants by the middle of Fiscal Year 2013. 3. The process, timing and criteria for communities to demonstrate their readiness to implement IDN variants are not addressed. This set of information would serve as an invaluable guide for communities regardless of whether they are early entrants or late entrants to IDN Variant implementation. The ALAC recommends the following: 1. Adopt an inclusive multistakeholder bottom-up approach to codepoint repertoire development that is consistent with the ICANN IDN Guidelines and relies on the community consensus in identifying and determining codepoints by language/script or groups of languages/scripts. 2. Develop a framework based on the findings of the integrated report that would serve as a checklist/guide for language communities to develop their IDN Variant TLD policy and or implementation plan. Such a checklist would include aspects that include codepoint repertoire, codepoint overlap, label generation ruleset, types and states of variants, etc. 3. Clarify the process, timing and criteria for engaging with communities who consider themselves ready to implement IDN Variants. In addition engage the ICANN channels for reaching out to various language communities to raise their awareness of these considerations. *Cost* The ALAC would appreciate an elaboration on the financial basis of the proposed project. *Risk* The ALAC understands and appreciates that security risk considerations are paramount. The introduction of new technological advancement however, requires balancing risk considerations with benefits to be derived. The demand for IDN Variants and the findings of the VIP case study reports indicate that the benefits of implementing IDN Variant TLDs out-weigh the risks. *Way Forward* Given that the technical community, including the IETF and the IAB, has iterated that the issue of IDN Variants cannot be solved with a technical solution based on current DNS standards, the ALAC agrees with the view that, in the immediate term, the implementation of IDN Variant TLDs should be focused on: 1. The engagement of communities in developing codepoint repertoire and label generation rule-set. 2. The development of a process, timeline and criteria for working with communities who are ready to implement IDN Variants. 3. The development of a framework that guides language communities in developing their IDN Variant policy and implementation plan.
Thank you very much for this follow-up Rinalia. I would just add a couple of notes which I have also recognized on the call: - the ALAC's concerns regarding following a standard path vs. looking at each variant case in turn appear to be already taken into account according to some of the comments made by Dennis Jennings. So it appears that each variant type will be studied separately, along with its own timeline, rather than a one-size-fits-all scenario - the point of timing issues which the ALAC is concerned with, appears to have already been echoed by other commenters and to be taken into account, with an amended time-line which would bring forth some of the segments allocated to 2013, to an earlier start. I personally find the matters of pointing out communities readiness to implement IDN variant very important indeed. It is one thing to approach such implementation in a top-down manner, but another to allow for communities desiring to work on their variants, to be pro-actively able to engage ICANN in rolling out IDN variants for their script. Thanks for pointing this out, it's an excellent point. Thanks for your draft which we can work on, in an accelerated procedure. May I suggest that comments/discussion takes place according to the following schedule: *Call for comments closing time*: Wednesday 18 April 2012 @ 23:59 UTC -- that gives it 1 week from today. If this group reaches consensus before this deadline, all the better & the statement can be submitted *Statement to be submitted*: Friday 20 April 2012 *ALAC Vote starts*: Friday 20 April at 20:00 UTC and ends on 27 April @ 23:59 UTC *Vote reminder on*: 25 April @ 0:00 UTC So the clock is ticking. I have also made a copy of your draft & added it to the relevant Wiki policy development page. (and also updated the new start/end date for the public comment) This is on: https://community.icann.org/x/jp-bAQ In order to have a way to track things, may WG members (and any other commenters) use the Wiki's "comment" feature, please? As a reminder, if you do not have a log-in for the WIKI, please ask one from staff@atlarge.icann.org . In the meantime, you may also comment without logging in -- just you identify yourself in your response so as for it to become a comment from more than an anonymous user. Kind regards, Olivier On 11/04/2012 10:25, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote :
Dear IDN WG,
We had a webinar today where the VIP Team re-presented their work. It was a pity that many of our WG members could not participate. *They made one point of clarification regarding the treatment of communities who consider themselves ready to implement IDN Variants - that it would only happen after the label generation toolset work is done. In their project plan this can only begin mid of FY13. *
ALAC is requested to make its response/comment to the proposed plan before the end of next week so that the VIP Team can incorporate our input in their next steps.
Below is my draft attempt at a response (based on my limited understanding) so that we can meet this deadline. Note: I draw heavily from Edmon's previous drafts before and after Costa Rica, with tweaks and adjustments based on the clarification made during today's webinar.
Gaps: 1. The issue on COST requires more content and justification - Tijani, perhaps you have some ideas. Otherwise, we might have to drop this aspect. 2. Would be good if reference to communities who are ready to implement IDN Variants could be expanded beyond the Chinese case if they are available - Cheryl, any thoughts?
Next Steps: 1. Staff - pls upload to a wikipage. 2. Edmon - pls check overall content. 3. Other WG members - please contribute.
Note: I have not proofread this draft.
Thanks.
Rinalia
[Draft] ALAC Response to the VIP Proposed Project Plan for Next Steps
*Acknowledgement of VIP Team Achievement*
The ALAC congratulates the IDN VIP team upon the successful completion of the case study reports and the final integrated report. We also wish to record our appreciation for the outreach efforts of the VIP Team aimed at enhancing the community’s understanding about the outcome of its work to date as well as the thinking/framework that guided its work and the processes entailed.
*Significance of IDNs and Implications on Future Work of the VIP Team*
The ALAC reiterates its continued recognition of the significance and importance of IDNs, including IDN TLDs in enhancing diversity and embracing multilingualism on the Internet. We believe that every culture and every language is unique and that the implementation of IDN and IDN Variants would serve to make the Internet more inclusive and representative of the world that we live in.
Given the importance of the work, the ALAC calls on the VIP Team to ensure that the conduct of its future work is accountable, transparent and does not duplicate work that has or is being done within or without the ICANN community. Towards this end, we urge the VIP Team to continuously inform the community on its work and progress, and to draw synergize wherever possible by leveraging on the work and expertise of the wider Internet community.
The ALAC is pleased with the VIP Team’s interest in engaging the wider Internet community, which the Team expressed during the ICANN meeting Costa Rica in March 2012. In doing so, We request that the VIP Team maintain a high level of transparency and clarify the project basis for engaging consultants vs. community volunteers vs. ICANN staff.
*Comments on the Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) Variant Issues Project (VIP) Proposed Project Plan *
_Approach_
The approach taken by the VIP Team is a standardized, universal and comprehensive one, which has merit in that it takes into consideration aspects of fairness and security. The approach hinges crucially upon the expectation that it is possible to develop a comprehensive codepoint repertoire and label generation rule-set within a specific timeframe. The VIP Team has been careful to clarify to the ALAC during a webinar on 11 April 2012 that until the codepoint repertoire and label-generation rule-set are complete, the implementation of any IDN Variant would not be considered regardless of the level of community readiness.
The ALAC concern regarding the VIP Team’s approach is as follows:
1. The standardized is contrary to the community consensus on appropriate approaches to the IDN Variant issues, which are highly diverse. A standardized approach also discriminates against communities who consider themselves ready to implement IDN Variants.
2. Assuming that it is possible to develop a comprehensive codepoint repertoire and label generation rule-set within the period specified in the proposed project plan, the VIP Team will only be ready to work with communities who can demonstrate that they are ready to implement IDN Variants by the middle of Fiscal Year 2013.
3. The process, timing and criteria for communities to demonstrate their readiness to implement IDN variants are not addressed. This set of information would serve as an invaluable guide for communities regardless of whether they are early entrants or late entrants to IDN Variant implementation.
The ALAC recommends the following:
1. Adopt an inclusive multistakeholder bottom-up approach to codepoint repertoire development that is consistent with the ICANN IDN Guidelines and relies on the community consensus in identifying and determining codepoints by language/script or groups of languages/scripts.
2. Develop a framework based on the findings of the integrated report that would serve as a checklist/guide for language communities to develop their IDN Variant TLD policy and or implementation plan. Such a checklist would include aspects that include codepoint repertoire, codepoint overlap, label generation ruleset, types and states of variants, etc.
3. Clarify the process, timing and criteria for engaging with communities who consider themselves ready to implement IDN Variants. In addition engage the ICANN channels for reaching out to various language communities to raise their awareness of these considerations.
_Cost_
The ALAC would appreciate an elaboration on the financial basis of the proposed project.
_Risk_
The ALAC understands and appreciates that security risk considerations are paramount. The introduction of new technological advancement however, requires balancing risk considerations with benefits to be derived. The demand for IDN Variants and the findings of the VIP case study reports indicate that the benefits of implementing IDN Variant TLDs out-weigh the risks.
*Way Forward*
Given that the technical community, including the IETF and the IAB, has iterated that the issue of IDN Variants cannot be solved with a technical solution based on current DNS standards, the ALAC agrees with the view that, in the immediate term, the implementation of IDN Variant TLDs should be focused on:
1. The engagement of communities in developing codepoint repertoire and label generation rule-set.
2. The development of a process, timeline and criteria for working with communities who are ready to implement IDN Variants.
3. The development of a framework that guides language communities in developing their IDN Variant policy and implementation plan.
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
I support these points Olivier... Rinalia you asked me specifically if more (in addition to the Chinese ) case needs to be made... My view is to NOT pick out any cases rather to be generic and approach "them all" with a look to who is 'ready' approach ...BUT if ALAC did highlight cases I'd use all the "brush scripts" or CJK's
From my Android Tablet...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) tweeter clo3 http://about.me/cheryl.Langdon-Orr www.langdon-orr. name On Apr 11, 2012 8:14 PM, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Thank you very much for this follow-up Rinalia.
I would just add a couple of notes which I have also recognized on the call: - the ALAC's concerns regarding following a standard path vs. looking at each variant case in turn appear to be already taken into account according to some of the comments made by Dennis Jennings. So it appears that each variant type will be studied separately, along with its own timeline, rather than a one-size-fits-all scenario - the point of timing issues which the ALAC is concerned with, appears to have already been echoed by other commenters and to be taken into account, with an amended time-line which would bring forth some of the segments allocated to 2013, to an earlier start.
I personally find the matters of pointing out communities readiness to implement IDN variant very important indeed. It is one thing to approach such implementation in a top-down manner, but another to allow for communities desiring to work on their variants, to be pro-actively able to engage ICANN in rolling out IDN variants for their script. Thanks for pointing this out, it's an excellent point.
Thanks for your draft which we can work on, in an accelerated procedure. May I suggest that comments/discussion takes place according to the following schedule:
*Call for comments closing time*: Wednesday 18 April 2012 @ 23:59 UTC -- that gives it 1 week from today. If this group reaches consensus before this deadline, all the better & the statement can be submitted *Statement to be submitted*: Friday 20 April 2012 *ALAC Vote starts*: Friday 20 April at 20:00 UTC and ends on 27 April @ 23:59 UTC *Vote reminder on*: 25 April @ 0:00 UTC
So the clock is ticking.
I have also made a copy of your draft & added it to the relevant Wiki policy development page. (and also updated the new start/end date for the public comment) This is on: https://community.icann.org/x/jp-bAQ
In order to have a way to track things, may WG members (and any other commenters) use the Wiki's "comment" feature, please? As a reminder, if you do not have a log-in for the WIKI, please ask one from staff@atlarge.icann.org . In the meantime, you may also comment without logging in -- just you identify yourself in your response so as for it to become a comment from more than an anonymous user.
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 11/04/2012 10:25, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote :
Dear IDN WG,
We had a webinar today where the VIP Team re-presented their work. It was a pity that many of our WG members could not participate. *They made one point of clarification regarding the treatment of communities who consider themselves ready to implement IDN Variants - that it would only happen after the label generation toolset work is done. In their project plan this can only begin mid of FY13. *
ALAC is requested to make its response/comment to the proposed plan before the end of next week so that the VIP Team can incorporate our input in their next steps.
Below is my draft attempt at a response (based on my limited understanding) so that we can meet this deadline. Note: I draw heavily from Edmon's previous drafts before and after Costa Rica, with tweaks and adjustments based on the clarification made during today's webinar.
Gaps: 1. The issue on COST requires more content and justification - Tijani, perhaps you have some ideas. Otherwise, we might have to drop this aspect. 2. Would be good if reference to communities who are ready to implement IDN Variants could be expanded beyond the Chinese case if they are available - Cheryl, any thoughts?
Next Steps: 1. Staff - pls upload to a wikipage. 2. Edmon - pls check overall content. 3. Other WG members - please contribute.
Note: I have not proofread this draft.
Thanks.
Rinalia
[Draft] ALAC Response to the VIP Proposed Project Plan for Next Steps
*Acknowledgement of VIP Team Achievement*
The ALAC congratulates the IDN VIP team upon the successful completion of the case study reports and the final integrated report. We also wish to record our appreciation for the outreach efforts of the VIP Team aimed at enhancing the community’s understanding about the outcome of its work to date as well as the thinking/framework that guided its work and the processes entailed.
*Significance of IDNs and Implications on Future Work of the VIP Team*
The ALAC reiterates its continued recognition of the significance and importance of IDNs, including IDN TLDs in enhancing diversity and embracing multilingualism on the Internet. We believe that every culture and every language is unique and that the implementation of IDN and IDN Variants would serve to make the Internet more inclusive and representative of the world that we live in.
Given the importance of the work, the ALAC calls on the VIP Team to ensure that the conduct of its future work is accountable, transparent and does not duplicate work that has or is being done within or without the ICANN community. Towards this end, we urge the VIP Team to continuously inform the community on its work and progress, and to draw synergize wherever possible by leveraging on the work and expertise of the wider Internet community.
The ALAC is pleased with the VIP Team’s interest in engaging the wider Internet community, which the Team expressed during the ICANN meeting Costa Rica in March 2012. In doing so, We request that the VIP Team maintain a high level of transparency and clarify the project basis for engaging consultants vs. community volunteers vs. ICANN staff.
*Comments on the Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) Variant Issues Project (VIP) Proposed Project Plan *
*Approach*
The approach taken by the VIP Team is a standardized, universal and comprehensive one, which has merit in that it takes into consideration aspects of fairness and security. The approach hinges crucially upon the expectation that it is possible to develop a comprehensive codepoint repertoire and label generation rule-set within a specific timeframe. The VIP Team has been careful to clarify to the ALAC during a webinar on 11 April 2012 that until the codepoint repertoire and label-generation rule-set are complete, the implementation of any IDN Variant would not be considered regardless of the level of community readiness.
The ALAC concern regarding the VIP Team’s approach is as follows:
1. The standardized is contrary to the community consensus on appropriate approaches to the IDN Variant issues, which are highly diverse. A standardized approach also discriminates against communities who consider themselves ready to implement IDN Variants.
2. Assuming that it is possible to develop a comprehensive codepoint repertoire and label generation rule-set within the period specified in the proposed project plan, the VIP Team will only be ready to work with communities who can demonstrate that they are ready to implement IDN Variants by the middle of Fiscal Year 2013.
3. The process, timing and criteria for communities to demonstrate their readiness to implement IDN variants are not addressed. This set of information would serve as an invaluable guide for communities regardless of whether they are early entrants or late entrants to IDN Variant implementation.
The ALAC recommends the following:
1. Adopt an inclusive multistakeholder bottom-up approach to codepoint repertoire development that is consistent with the ICANN IDN Guidelines and relies on the community consensus in identifying and determining codepoints by language/script or groups of languages/scripts.
2. Develop a framework based on the findings of the integrated report that would serve as a checklist/guide for language communities to develop their IDN Variant TLD policy and or implementation plan. Such a checklist would include aspects that include codepoint repertoire, codepoint overlap, label generation ruleset, types and states of variants, etc.
3. Clarify the process, timing and criteria for engaging with communities who consider themselves ready to implement IDN Variants. In addition engage the ICANN channels for reaching out to various language communities to raise their awareness of these considerations.
*Cost*
The ALAC would appreciate an elaboration on the financial basis of the proposed project.
*Risk*
The ALAC understands and appreciates that security risk considerations are paramount. The introduction of new technological advancement however, requires balancing risk considerations with benefits to be derived. The demand for IDN Variants and the findings of the VIP case study reports indicate that the benefits of implementing IDN Variant TLDs out-weigh the risks.
*Way Forward*
Given that the technical community, including the IETF and the IAB, has iterated that the issue of IDN Variants cannot be solved with a technical solution based on current DNS standards, the ALAC agrees with the view that, in the immediate term, the implementation of IDN Variant TLDs should be focused on:
1. The engagement of communities in developing codepoint repertoire and label generation rule-set.
2. The development of a process, timeline and criteria for working with communities who are ready to implement IDN Variants.
3. The development of a framework that guides language communities in developing their IDN Variant policy and implementation plan.
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
*Dear All,* * * *congratulations Rinalia on your fine draft. I've added some comments on the Confluence page.* * * *Best regards,* *Jean-Jacques. * Le 13 avril 2012 04:27, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> a écrit :
I support these points Olivier... Rinalia you asked me specifically if more (in addition to the Chinese ) case needs to be made... My view is to NOT pick out any cases rather to be generic and approach "them all" with a look to who is 'ready' approach ...BUT if ALAC did highlight cases I'd use all the "brush scripts" or CJK's
From my Android Tablet...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) tweeter clo3 http://about.me/cheryl.Langdon-Orr www.langdon-orr. name On Apr 11, 2012 8:14 PM, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Thank you very much for this follow-up Rinalia.
I would just add a couple of notes which I have also recognized on the call: - the ALAC's concerns regarding following a standard path vs. looking at each variant case in turn appear to be already taken into account according to some of the comments made by Dennis Jennings. So it appears that each variant type will be studied separately, along with its own timeline, rather than a one-size-fits-all scenario - the point of timing issues which the ALAC is concerned with, appears to have already been echoed by other commenters and to be taken into account, with an amended time-line which would bring forth some of the segments allocated to 2013, to an earlier start.
I personally find the matters of pointing out communities readiness to implement IDN variant very important indeed. It is one thing to approach such implementation in a top-down manner, but another to allow for communities desiring to work on their variants, to be pro-actively able to engage ICANN in rolling out IDN variants for their script. Thanks for pointing this out, it's an excellent point.
Thanks for your draft which we can work on, in an accelerated procedure. May I suggest that comments/discussion takes place according to the following schedule:
*Call for comments closing time*: Wednesday 18 April 2012 @ 23:59 UTC -- that gives it 1 week from today. If this group reaches consensus before this deadline, all the better & the statement can be submitted *Statement to be submitted*: Friday 20 April 2012 *ALAC Vote starts*: Friday 20 April at 20:00 UTC and ends on 27 April @ 23:59 UTC *Vote reminder on*: 25 April @ 0:00 UTC
So the clock is ticking.
I have also made a copy of your draft & added it to the relevant Wiki policy development page. (and also updated the new start/end date for the public comment) This is on: https://community.icann.org/x/jp-bAQ
In order to have a way to track things, may WG members (and any other commenters) use the Wiki's "comment" feature, please? As a reminder, if you do not have a log-in for the WIKI, please ask one from staff@atlarge.icann.org . In the meantime, you may also comment without logging in -- just you identify yourself in your response so as for it to become a comment from more than an anonymous user.
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 11/04/2012 10:25, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote :
Dear IDN WG,
We had a webinar today where the VIP Team re-presented their work. It was a pity that many of our WG members could not participate. *They made one point of clarification regarding the treatment of communities who consider themselves ready to implement IDN Variants - that it would only happen after the label generation toolset work is done. In their project plan this can only begin mid of FY13. *
ALAC is requested to make its response/comment to the proposed plan before the end of next week so that the VIP Team can incorporate our input in their next steps.
Below is my draft attempt at a response (based on my limited understanding) so that we can meet this deadline. Note: I draw heavily from Edmon's previous drafts before and after Costa Rica, with tweaks and adjustments based on the clarification made during today's webinar.
Gaps: 1. The issue on COST requires more content and justification - Tijani, perhaps you have some ideas. Otherwise, we might have to drop this aspect. 2. Would be good if reference to communities who are ready to implement IDN Variants could be expanded beyond the Chinese case if they are available - Cheryl, any thoughts?
Next Steps: 1. Staff - pls upload to a wikipage. 2. Edmon - pls check overall content. 3. Other WG members - please contribute.
Note: I have not proofread this draft.
Thanks.
Rinalia
[Draft] ALAC Response to the VIP Proposed Project Plan for Next Steps
*Acknowledgement of VIP Team Achievement*
The ALAC congratulates the IDN VIP team upon the successful completion of the case study reports and the final integrated report. We also wish to record our appreciation for the outreach efforts of the VIP Team aimed at enhancing the community’s understanding about the outcome of its work to date as well as the thinking/framework that guided its work and the processes entailed.
*Significance of IDNs and Implications on Future Work of the VIP Team*
The ALAC reiterates its continued recognition of the significance and importance of IDNs, including IDN TLDs in enhancing diversity and embracing multilingualism on the Internet. We believe that every culture and every language is unique and that the implementation of IDN and IDN Variants would serve to make the Internet more inclusive and representative of the world that we live in.
Given the importance of the work, the ALAC calls on the VIP Team to ensure that the conduct of its future work is accountable, transparent and does not duplicate work that has or is being done within or without the ICANN community. Towards this end, we urge the VIP Team to continuously inform the community on its work and progress, and to draw synergize wherever possible by leveraging on the work and expertise of the wider Internet community.
The ALAC is pleased with the VIP Team’s interest in engaging the wider Internet community, which the Team expressed during the ICANN meeting Costa Rica in March 2012. In doing so, We request that the VIP Team maintain a high level of transparency and clarify the project basis for engaging consultants vs. community volunteers vs. ICANN staff.
*Comments on the Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) Variant Issues Project (VIP) Proposed Project Plan *
*Approach*
The approach taken by the VIP Team is a standardized, universal and comprehensive one, which has merit in that it takes into consideration aspects of fairness and security. The approach hinges crucially upon the expectation that it is possible to develop a comprehensive codepoint repertoire and label generation rule-set within a specific timeframe. The VIP Team has been careful to clarify to the ALAC during a webinar on 11 April 2012 that until the codepoint repertoire and label-generation rule-set are complete, the implementation of any IDN Variant would not be considered regardless of the level of community readiness.
The ALAC concern regarding the VIP Team’s approach is as follows:
1. The standardized is contrary to the community consensus on appropriate approaches to the IDN Variant issues, which are highly diverse. A standardized approach also discriminates against communities who consider themselves ready to implement IDN Variants.
2. Assuming that it is possible to develop a comprehensive codepoint repertoire and label generation rule-set within the period specified in the proposed project plan, the VIP Team will only be ready to work with communities who can demonstrate that they are ready to implement IDN Variants by the middle of Fiscal Year 2013.
3. The process, timing and criteria for communities to demonstrate their readiness to implement IDN variants are not addressed. This set of information would serve as an invaluable guide for communities regardless of whether they are early entrants or late entrants to IDN Variant implementation.
The ALAC recommends the following:
1. Adopt an inclusive multistakeholder bottom-up approach to codepoint repertoire development that is consistent with the ICANN IDN Guidelines and relies on the community consensus in identifying and determining codepoints by language/script or groups of languages/scripts.
2. Develop a framework based on the findings of the integrated report that would serve as a checklist/guide for language communities to develop their IDN Variant TLD policy and or implementation plan. Such a checklist would include aspects that include codepoint repertoire, codepoint overlap, label generation ruleset, types and states of variants, etc.
3. Clarify the process, timing and criteria for engaging with communities who consider themselves ready to implement IDN Variants. In addition engage the ICANN channels for reaching out to various language communities to raise their awareness of these considerations.
*Cost*
The ALAC would appreciate an elaboration on the financial basis of the proposed project.
*Risk*
The ALAC understands and appreciates that security risk considerations are paramount. The introduction of new technological advancement however, requires balancing risk considerations with benefits to be derived. The demand for IDN Variants and the findings of the VIP case study reports indicate that the benefits of implementing IDN Variant TLDs out-weigh the risks.
*Way Forward*
Given that the technical community, including the IETF and the IAB, has iterated that the issue of IDN Variants cannot be solved with a technical solution based on current DNS standards, the ALAC agrees with the view that, in the immediate term, the implementation of IDN Variant TLDs should be focused on:
1. The engagement of communities in developing codepoint repertoire and label generation rule-set.
2. The development of a process, timeline and criteria for working with communities who are ready to implement IDN Variants.
3. The development of a framework that guides language communities in developing their IDN Variant policy and implementation plan.
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ IDN-WG mailing list IDN-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg
IDN WG Wiki: https://st.icann.org/idn-policy/index.cgi?at_large_idn_policy
Fully supportive of the drafted statement. It encapsulates all the key points accurately. Edmon -----Original Message----- From: idn-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:idn-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of JJS Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 9:25 AM To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr Cc: ICANN AtLarge Staff; idn-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org; Tijani BEN JEMAA Subject: Re: [IDN-WG] ALAC Response to the VIP Proposed Project Plan and Next Steps *Dear All,* * * *congratulations Rinalia on your fine draft. I've added some comments on the Confluence page.* * * *Best regards,* *Jean-Jacques. * Le 13 avril 2012 04:27, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> a écrit :
I support these points Olivier... Rinalia you asked me specifically if more (in addition to the Chinese ) case needs to be made... My view is to NOT pick out any cases rather to be generic and approach "them all" with a look to who is 'ready' approach ...BUT if ALAC did highlight cases I'd use all the "brush scripts" or CJK's
From my Android Tablet...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) tweeter clo3 http://about.me/cheryl.Langdon-Orr www.langdon-orr. name On Apr 11, 2012 8:14 PM, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Thank you very much for this follow-up Rinalia.
I would just add a couple of notes which I have also recognized on the call: - the ALAC's concerns regarding following a standard path vs. looking at each variant case in turn appear to be already taken into account according to some of the comments made by Dennis Jennings. So it appears that each variant type will be studied separately, along with its own timeline, rather than a one-size-fits-all scenario - the point of timing issues which the ALAC is concerned with, appears to have already been echoed by other commenters and to be taken into account, with an amended time-line which would bring forth some of the segments allocated to 2013, to an earlier start.
I personally find the matters of pointing out communities readiness to implement IDN variant very important indeed. It is one thing to approach such implementation in a top-down manner, but another to allow for communities desiring to work on their variants, to be pro-actively able to engage ICANN in rolling out IDN variants for their script. Thanks for pointing this out, it's an excellent point.
Thanks for your draft which we can work on, in an accelerated procedure. May I suggest that comments/discussion takes place according to the following schedule:
*Call for comments closing time*: Wednesday 18 April 2012 @ 23:59 UTC -- that gives it 1 week from today. If this group reaches consensus before this deadline, all the better & the statement can be submitted *Statement to be submitted*: Friday 20 April 2012 *ALAC Vote starts*: Friday 20 April at 20:00 UTC and ends on 27 April @ 23:59 UTC *Vote reminder on*: 25 April @ 0:00 UTC
So the clock is ticking.
I have also made a copy of your draft & added it to the relevant Wiki policy development page. (and also updated the new start/end date for the public comment) This is on: https://community.icann.org/x/jp-bAQ
In order to have a way to track things, may WG members (and any other commenters) use the Wiki's "comment" feature, please? As a reminder, if you do not have a log-in for the WIKI, please ask one from staff@atlarge.icann.org . In the meantime, you may also comment without logging in -- just you identify yourself in your response so as for it to become a comment from more than an anonymous user.
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 11/04/2012 10:25, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote :
Dear IDN WG,
We had a webinar today where the VIP Team re-presented their work. It was a pity that many of our WG members could not participate. *They made one point of clarification regarding the treatment of communities who consider themselves ready to implement IDN Variants - that it would only happen after the label generation toolset work is done. In their project plan this can only begin mid of FY13. *
ALAC is requested to make its response/comment to the proposed plan before the end of next week so that the VIP Team can incorporate our input in their next steps.
Below is my draft attempt at a response (based on my limited understanding) so that we can meet this deadline. Note: I draw heavily from Edmon's previous drafts before and after Costa Rica, with tweaks and adjustments based on the clarification made during today's webinar.
Gaps: 1. The issue on COST requires more content and justification - Tijani, perhaps you have some ideas. Otherwise, we might have to drop this aspect. 2. Would be good if reference to communities who are ready to implement IDN Variants could be expanded beyond the Chinese case if they are available - Cheryl, any thoughts?
Next Steps: 1. Staff - pls upload to a wikipage. 2. Edmon - pls check overall content. 3. Other WG members - please contribute.
Note: I have not proofread this draft.
Thanks.
Rinalia
[Draft] ALAC Response to the VIP Proposed Project Plan for Next Steps
*Acknowledgement of VIP Team Achievement*
The ALAC congratulates the IDN VIP team upon the successful completion of the case study reports and the final integrated report. We also wish to record our appreciation for the outreach efforts of the VIP Team aimed at enhancing the community’s understanding about the outcome of its work to date as well as the thinking/framework that guided its work and the processes entailed.
*Significance of IDNs and Implications on Future Work of the VIP Team*
The ALAC reiterates its continued recognition of the significance and importance of IDNs, including IDN TLDs in enhancing diversity and embracing multilingualism on the Internet. We believe that every culture and every language is unique and that the implementation of IDN and IDN Variants would serve to make the Internet more inclusive and representative of the world that we live in.
Given the importance of the work, the ALAC calls on the VIP Team to ensure that the conduct of its future work is accountable, transparent and does not duplicate work that has or is being done within or without the ICANN community. Towards this end, we urge the VIP Team to continuously inform the community on its work and progress, and to draw synergize wherever possible by leveraging on the work and expertise of the wider Internet community.
The ALAC is pleased with the VIP Team’s interest in engaging the wider Internet community, which the Team expressed during the ICANN meeting Costa Rica in March 2012. In doing so, We request that the VIP Team maintain a high level of transparency and clarify the project basis for engaging consultants vs. community volunteers vs. ICANN staff.
*Comments on the Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) Variant Issues Project (VIP) Proposed Project Plan *
*Approach*
The approach taken by the VIP Team is a standardized, universal and comprehensive one, which has merit in that it takes into consideration aspects of fairness and security. The approach hinges crucially upon the expectation that it is possible to develop a comprehensive codepoint repertoire and label generation rule-set within a specific timeframe. The VIP Team has been careful to clarify to the ALAC during a webinar on 11 April 2012 that until the codepoint repertoire and label-generation rule-set are complete, the implementation of any IDN Variant would not be considered regardless of the level of community readiness.
The ALAC concern regarding the VIP Team’s approach is as follows:
1. The standardized is contrary to the community consensus on appropriate approaches to the IDN Variant issues, which are highly diverse. A standardized approach also discriminates against communities who consider themselves ready to implement IDN Variants.
2. Assuming that it is possible to develop a comprehensive codepoint repertoire and label generation rule-set within the period specified in the proposed project plan, the VIP Team will only be ready to work with communities who can demonstrate that they are ready to implement IDN Variants by the middle of Fiscal Year 2013.
3. The process, timing and criteria for communities to demonstrate their readiness to implement IDN variants are not addressed. This set of information would serve as an invaluable guide for communities regardless of whether they are early entrants or late entrants to IDN Variant implementation.
The ALAC recommends the following:
1. Adopt an inclusive multistakeholder bottom-up approach to codepoint repertoire development that is consistent with the ICANN IDN Guidelines and relies on the community consensus in identifying and determining codepoints by language/script or groups of languages/scripts.
2. Develop a framework based on the findings of the integrated report that would serve as a checklist/guide for language communities to develop their IDN Variant TLD policy and or implementation plan. Such a checklist would include aspects that include codepoint repertoire, codepoint overlap, label generation ruleset, types and states of variants, etc.
3. Clarify the process, timing and criteria for engaging with communities who consider themselves ready to implement IDN Variants. In addition engage the ICANN channels for reaching out to various language communities to raise their awareness of these considerations.
*Cost*
The ALAC would appreciate an elaboration on the financial basis of the proposed project.
*Risk*
The ALAC understands and appreciates that security risk considerations are paramount. The introduction of new technological advancement however, requires balancing risk considerations with benefits to be derived. The demand for IDN Variants and the findings of the VIP case study reports indicate that the benefits of implementing IDN Variant TLDs out-weigh the risks.
*Way Forward*
Given that the technical community, including the IETF and the IAB, has iterated that the issue of IDN Variants cannot be solved with a technical solution based on current DNS standards, the ALAC agrees with the view that, in the immediate term, the implementation of IDN Variant TLDs should be focused on:
1. The engagement of communities in developing codepoint repertoire and label generation rule-set.
2. The development of a process, timeline and criteria for working with communities who are ready to implement IDN Variants.
3. The development of a framework that guides language communities in developing their IDN Variant policy and implementation plan.
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ IDN-WG mailing list IDN-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg
IDN WG Wiki: https://st.icann.org/idn-policy/index.cgi?at_large_idn_policy
_______________________________________________ IDN-WG mailing list IDN-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg IDN WG Wiki: https://st.icann.org/idn-policy/index.cgi?at_large_idn_policy
*They made one
point of clarification regarding the treatment of communities who consider themselves ready to implement IDN Variants - that it would only happen after the label generation toolset work is done. In their project plan this can only begin mid of FY13. *
If a community is already ready on technology, policy and management, why people in that community have to wait until mid 2013 to implement IDN variant TLDs? This conclude would actually exclude some variant-related IDN TLD applications from the first-round new gTLD program. Among six scripts under VIP study and project plan, Chinese community that is most ready on IDN variants would be most affected. If this is the truth, it should be revealed. At the end of the day, it is the ordinary Chinese-script users who suffer most from these arbitrary decisions. I assume at-large has the responsibility to truthfully reflect users' view. Actually, Chinese community is not asking for any favorite treatment, instead, they are against exclusive and discriminative treatment. BTW, variant issues are unique to Chinese scripts, not relevant to Japanese or Korean. So CJK cannot be bundled on variants. Hong -- Dr. Hong Xue Professor of Law Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China
Agree with Hong and I think our response already refuted the VIP team's suggestion and recommended otherwise. Edmon -----Original Message----- From: idn-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:idn-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Hong Xue Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 2:15 PM To: At-Large Worldwide Cc: idn-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [IDN-WG] ALAC Response to the VIP Proposed Project Plan and Next Steps *They made one
point of clarification regarding the treatment of communities who consider themselves ready to implement IDN Variants - that it would only happen after the label generation toolset work is done. In their project plan this can only begin mid of FY13. *
If a community is already ready on technology, policy and management, why people in that community have to wait until mid 2013 to implement IDN variant TLDs? This conclude would actually exclude some variant-related IDN TLD applications from the first-round new gTLD program. Among six scripts under VIP study and project plan, Chinese community that is most ready on IDN variants would be most affected. If this is the truth, it should be revealed. At the end of the day, it is the ordinary Chinese-script users who suffer most from these arbitrary decisions. I assume at-large has the responsibility to truthfully reflect users' view. Actually, Chinese community is not asking for any favorite treatment, instead, they are against exclusive and discriminative treatment. BTW, variant issues are unique to Chinese scripts, not relevant to Japanese or Korean. So CJK cannot be bundled on variants. Hong -- Dr. Hong Xue Professor of Law Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China _______________________________________________ IDN-WG mailing list IDN-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg IDN WG Wiki: https://st.icann.org/idn-policy/index.cgi?at_large_idn_policy
participants (6)
-
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Edmon Chung -
Hong Xue -
JJS -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Rinalia Abdul Rahim