I sent the fifth draft of the IDN document on Dec 20... but since I was a bit surprised not to have received any comment, I checked and I noticed that I didn't receive it back from the list. Also, it does not appear on our web archive of the list - but it is stuck on Dec 20 anyway (more work for ICANN webmasters). So I'm attaching it again - let's see if this time it gets through. The text of the message is copied below. (Of course we'll put it out for comment not before Jan 7, I'd say.) Happy New Year, ----- Here is the fifth draft of the IDN document, which I think is a good compromise between all different proposals - so I hope this is the final one. If I don't get objections we will put it out for public comment on December 27. Changes: - revised second para wording on cultural priorities (Thomas); - weakened recommendation #1 to make it a feasibility study (Thomas); - added further clarification at the end of recommendation #4 on the opportunity of bundled registrations (we're not saying that bundles are compulsory, we're giving two options anyway) (Roberto); - added an alternative to stopping the registrations, which is making them provisional, ie subject to a final check against the policies once approved; - added further clarification at the end of recommendation #9, to clarify that complete i18n of URIs does not necessarily have to happen at the protocol level, but could happen at the application (Roberto). I did not change anything on #7. I am convinced that "universal access" to gTLDs in terms of available scripts should be forced onto registries, exactly like other forms of universal access are forced onto telecommunication operators. I don't think you can go to Norbert Klein and say "you know what? you can't have .com domain names in Cambodian, because it's not a relevant market in business terms" - I don't think this is right. I'm not sure whether this would reinforce or weaken my argument :) but this morning I was giving a glance at the statement by the WSIS working group of ITU: http://www.itu.int/council/wsis/Geneva3_04/intgov-contribution-wg-wsis.doc and I found this on page 13: "For example, deployment of Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) needs to be accelerated. If Internet style addresses are to become a predominant global addressing scheme in the future for end point identifiers or subscriber identity (e.g. for VoIP), then they must support all language scripts of the world." You see, there is an actual strong push coming up from many parts of the world for ICANN to meet this request. Just replying "Verisign won't like it" will not make the position stronger - at most, it will just show that an entity that is so afraid of lawsuits from Verisign isn't fit to manage the Internet, and will be loudly exploited to this purpose. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi...
Attachment:
ALAC position on IDN - draft 5.doc
Description: application/vnd.ms-word