My comment of IDN ToR in GNSO council

[Chun Eung Hwi]

Dear Mawaki Chango and others,

For GNSO Council meeting, I made some comments on the proposed terms of 
reference for IDN.

I don’t thinkcouncilers u have enough time to make some comments on IDN
issue. So, at the moment, I hope to check only some points from the
redrafted terms of reference proposal. I want to get some clarifications
of issues.

1.Terminology issue
Proposed ToR is using the word of “gTLDs with IDN labels” or “IDN-gTLD 
label”. These terms are presupposing that kind of IDN TLD is necessary . 
And sometimes in that respect, it is being used in contrast with “IDN 
ccTLD” However, at this stage, such a terminology is not appropriate 
because at least how (according to what principles) IDN TLD would be 
created has not yet been clearly decided, rather it makes some 
misunderstanding and confusion. Just IDN-TLD is enough. 

2.What “reguisite” initial trials means?
As updated Issue Report describes, at the initial technical tests, DNAME 
approach will not be used. Then, proposed ToR 1-b is saying “awaiting the 
outcome of the requisite initial trials. Here who will decide “requiste” 
elements? Will it be GNSO or IDN Committee or Board?

3.Selection Criteria of IDN TLD
Proposed ToR 2-a is saying “develop modified or additional criteria for
the inclusion of IDN labels” This could be required in some
circumstances. However, at this stage, we don’t know yet how new IDN TLD
would be created. In some cases, such criteria could be defined in some
different mechanism from GNSO e.g. why we cannot imagine IDN-SO or
something like that. It can be undertaken in a separate independent name
space. Therefore, my suggestion is to add up one phrase - “if necessary”
to 2-1 sentence.

4.So-called “differentiation” issue
Proposed ToR 5 describes so-called “differentiation issue” from the 
existing label (presumably existing gTLDs). It is saying some 
differentiation is necessary in graphic, phonetic, and semantic terms.
But this is just one argument. For me, IDN script is itself differentiated 
from the existing TLDs in its different script (language). Then, why again 
differentiation is needed? This is on-going argument of gTLD registry for 
a long time. 
Therefore, I suggest that given the importance of user experience and user 
expectation as the revised Issues Report is emphasizing, we ask another 
question whether so-called such differentiation in graphic, phonetic and 
semantic terms is  truly necessary in terms of user experience and 
expectation. I hope to add up this question to ToR 5.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
Chun Eung Hwi
General Secretary, PeaceNet |   fax:     (+82)  2-2649-2624
Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81   |   pcs:     (+82)  19-259-2667
Seoul, 158-600, Korea  	    | eMail:   chun at peacenet.or.kr
------------------------------------------------------------