My comment of IDN ToR in GNSO council

[Chun Eung Hwi]

Yes, I know what is happening. I heard council record.
Certainly, my comment was put forward too late. 
And as you know, the redrafted ToR had also been submitted too late 
immediately before council meeting. 
If possible, I will add up more comments before Amsterdam meeting. 
Anyhow, we should work in this situation.

And, I am not sure well what is being prepared for Amsterdam meeting. 
Robin and Norbert, will you go there?
I hope more concilers representing NCUC could be present at council 
meeting although this vacation season is very tough even for anybody. 


regards,

Chun


On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Mawaki Chango wrote:

> 
> Dear Chun Eung Hwi et al.
> 
> Thanks for your inputs. I received them the very morning of the last
> Council teleconf, and was unable to reflect upon them and make any
> significant proposal to the discussion of the TORs as you suggest.
> The discussion will continue in Amsterdam, end of August, and I would
> suggest any comments (from all) be posted by Aug 20 the latest, thank
> you for your cooperation.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Mawaki
> 
> 
> --- Chun Eung Hwi <chun at PEACENET.OR.KR> wrote:
> 
> > 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
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> 
> 

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------