<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] RE: IDN ccTLD Fast Track implementation plan council comments

Title: IDN ccTLD Fast Track implementation plan council comments
Edmon,
 
Good job.  I have just two comments:
  1. It seems to me that "Compliance with consensus policies." is not a very good heading for item 4, dealing with security & stability.  Would this be better: "Ensuring security and stability'?
  2. Is item 5 really a concern in the fast tract if the IDN ccTLD fast track names are restricted to country names as defined  by the IDNC?  It seems to me that it might not be.
Chuck

From: Edmon Chung [mailto:edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 12:35 AM
To: gnso-idnc-initial@xxxxxxxxx; 'Council GNSO'
Subject: IDN ccTLD Fast Track implementation plan council comments

Hi Everyone,

Apologies for the delay on this matter, please find attached the draft for the council comments on the Draft IDN ccTLD Fast Track implementation plan.

The document is mainly separated into 2 parts:
(A) response on Module 7, where 5 open questions were raised
(B) reemphasizing some of the issues raised previously


For (A) the 5 open questions listed in Module 7 were:
1. Ensuring ongoing compliance with the IDN technical standards, including the IDNA protocol and the IDN Guidelines.
2. Possible establishment of financial contributions.
3. IDN ccTLD operator association to the ICANN community.
4. Compliance with consensus policies
5. Prevention of contention issues with existing TLDs and those under application in the gTLD process.

The draft mainly extracted statements from previous documents to respond to the topics, but have also emphasized that we may require much broader input from the community on the issues because they are largely new considerations not specifically discussed previously.  In particular, 3 & 4, and some respects 2 & 5.


For (B) 3 items were specifically reemphasized:
1. Lack of structure for implementation in the situation where a proposed Fast Track IDN ccTLD string is not listed in the UNGEGN manual (i.e. not in a particular authoritative list)

2. Lack of clarity in the process for linguistic process check and confirmation of a requested string
3. Lack of consideration for avoiding confusingly similar strings


Comments/thoughts welcome.

Since, the deadline for comments to the draft implementation plan is Jan 9, in view of time, perhaps we can have a discussion on the council list and on our meeting on Jan 8 to finalize our response.

Edmon


PS. Happy New Year! :-)