I am sharing this view from Hong - Asia-Pacific ALAC Member - that shows some insight into two of our most vexed problems. Carlton ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Hong Xue <hongxueipr@gmail.com> Date: Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 8:24 AM Subject: [ALAC-Internal] Draft of Comments on Fast-Track IDN ccTLDs To: ALAC - internal <alac-admin@icann.org> ICANN published the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Draft Implementation Plan on 23 October 2008. The public comment period is open until 8 December 2008. Since ALAC has always been active in the consultation and policy advice process on fast-track IDN ccTLDs, I suggest take the opportunity to send in our comments sooner rather than later. To expediate drafting, I made the 0.1 version for your review: The at-large community is inspired that the long-awaited fast-track IDN ccTLDs could be implemented in as early as 3 months. The community notes from the Implementation Plan that the Support from the relevant script community for the IDN table is required for evaluation among the other documentation of endorsement. The IANA Procedure for Delegation or Redelegation of ccTLDs <http://www.iana.org/domains/root/delegation-guide/>, also clearly requires that relevant ccTLD delegation or redelegation request show how it will serve the local interest in the country. In the case of an IDN ccTLD, the local interest would be more specific. Apparently, the ccTLDs need the support of the local user community for the fast-track application and implementation. On the other hand, the user community needs the support IDN ccTLDs. It is in the mutual interest of both the IDN ccTLD registry community and the local IDN user community to keep a very close, cooperative and supportive relationship. Presently, many ccTLD registries are actually supporting the local user organizations in various ways. The outstanding examples are healthy interaction and collaboration between the ccTLDs (such as .br and .au) and local ALSes on policy consultations and community services. The launch of IDN ccTLDs opens up new opportunities for both community. If we take translation as a example, we can see the great potential coming up. The IDN ccTLDs demonstrate the registries have the relevant capacity to provide the services in local scripts. Then, it would be reasonable for the local user community to rely on the registries to translate the ICANN policies and other documents into the local languages. Such *distributive* model, as contrast to the present ICANN centralized model, would enhance efficiency through linking up the ICANN and its different constituencies and ensure the sustainability of the resources. With respect to ICANN, the clauses on community services should be incorporated and enforced in the IDN ccTLD delegation agreements. Also, ICANN should take the IDN ccTLD's community services or contribution as the valid contribution to the ICANN as stated in the Implementation Plan so that all the stakeholders would have the momentum to develop the system. We also hope that the community-based gTLDs could take the similar path to consolidate the connection with the user community. Hong _______________________________________________ ALAC-Internal mailing list ALAC-Internal@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists.... ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac At-Large <http://st.icann.org/alacAt-Large> Website: http://atlarge.icann.org