My comment of IDN ToR in GNSO council

[Mawaki Chango]

In fact, the TORs have not changed in the latest version posted
before the last council teleconf. I myself received it late at night
for a meeting that was due to start at 8am the following morning, and
couldn't even open the attachment. Obviously, it can't be expected
from the council members to read and reflect on a new version of a
report posted with such a late notice (with regard to the meeting
scheduled to discuss it) - so that we may reasonably assume the
reason of reposting it lies in slight edits and corrections, but no
change in the substance.

Mawaki

--- Chun Eung Hwi <chun at PEACENET.OR.KR> wrote:

> 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
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>