DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] [Coordination] Interim Committee on Internationalized Domain Names


Your participation will be appreciated.

Thank you,

> YJ-
> I had attempted to volunteer for the Committee, but evidently failed to
> noticed.  So please accept this as my indication that I would like to be a
> member.
> Thanks,
> Roger
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: YJ Park [mailto:yjpark@myepark.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 7:47 PM
> To: council@dnso.org; mkatoh@wdc.fujitsu.com; Karl Auerbach; vint cerf;
> ivanmc@akwan.com
> Cc: Richard.DELMAS@cec.eu.int; michelle.scott@noie.gov.au;
> jerrius@mic.go.kr
> Subject: [council] [Coordination] Interim Committee on
> Internationalized Domain Names
> Council members,
> After Melbourne meeting, we have seen various groups formed
> regarding "Internationalized Domain Names" by Board and GAC
> or "Multilingual Domain Names" by NC.
> I. Status report
> Interim Committee members are YJ Park(Chair), Grant Forsyth.
> It has been formd and recognized on March 11 during NC meeting.
> We do expect more volunteers from other constituencies, too.
> II. Comparisons Statements by Three Parties:
> ---------------------------------------------
> Names Council stated in its Business Plan.(Please, see Appendix 1)
> 1. To develop consensus policies for multilingual domain names
> 2. To evaulate Verisign Multilingual Testingbed
> 3. To propose terms of reference for NC task force or working group.
> ICANN Board stated in its Resolutions.(Please, see Appendix 2)
> 1. To identify the various internationalization efforts and the issues
> 2. To engage in dialogue with technical experts and other participants
> in these efforts, and to make appropriate recommendations to the Board.
> GAC stated in its Communique.(Please, see Appendix 3)
> 1. Importance of interoperability of the present and future Internet;
> 2. The prevention of cybersquatting and resolution of disputes in the IDNs
> 3. The application of competition and market access, consumer protection
>     and intellectual property principles.
> Therefore, the mission statements described by three parties during
> Melbourne meeting have been overlapped in many areas and needs some
> coordination among three parties to have more productive results in the
> future.
> III. The common subjects to start with
> --------------------------------------
>     - Who are the players in each character-set regions
>     - What kind of technologies have been explored
>     - How many testbed have been carried out
>     - The impacts of each testbed to each character-set region
>     - The domain name disputes in each chracter-set region
>     - The relations among Character-sets vs Language vs Sovereignty
>        [Case a] Global Groups
>        Chinese character-set - Chinese Language - China, Taiwan, .....
>        Arabic character-set - Arabic Language - Arab region,
> of Africa,
> of Asia
>        Note 1: Even though the Japanese, the Korean cannot speak
>        Chinese, they can recognize some common Chisnese characters
>        and they even have been used in various places especially in the
>        daily newspapers and academic journals.
>        Note 2: Even though French and Spanish are quite different from
>        English, they are not keen to this Internationalized Domain Names
>        due to its similar character-sets to Roman one.
>        [Case b] Small homogeneous community
>        Korean character-set - Korean Language - Korea ?
>        [Case c] Small heterogeneous community
>        India: 200 or so languages and 34 or so official languages
>        Hindi charater-set - Hindi Language - India ?
>        Tamil character-set - Tamil Language - India, Mauritius,
>        [Note] African local languages have not been considered.
> IV. The Notable Differences among Three Statements
> ------------------------------------------------------
> - NC highlights Versign Testbed evaluation and potential policy
> - Board emphasizes information gathering process.
> - GAC placed emphasis on "Interoperability", "Cybersquatting" and
>   "Pre-registration" implication to domain name registrants and registrars
>   with respect to potential law enforcement.
> V. How to coordinate three committees which have the similar goals
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Considering GAC's capacity as advisory committee in the ICANN
> structure, NC is to react those substantial issues more seriously in a
> timely manner upon GAC's requests.
> NC is to facilitate discussion within DNSO however due to a series of
> urgent issues such as Verisign contract, New gTLD contract and their
> evaluation process, UDRP review process, DNSO funding, secretariat, etc.
> it is quite challenging for the community to engage in this discussion.
> It would be more helpful to hear from ICANN Board WG's and
> GAC WG's opinionss to NC Interim Committee's scope and timeframe.
> This is my rough ideas to get this ball rolling.
> Thanks,
> YJ
> ps. I could not get the whole list of GAC WG members(8).
> [Appendix 1: NC's Buisiness Plan Version 7]
> Develop consensus policies for implementation of multilingual
> domain names. Timeframe: 2001.
> Strategies
> 5.1 Request ICANN to review and evaluate the Verisign Multilingual
> Testbed prior to live launch of multilingual domain name registrations.
> 5.2 Establish an interim committee to propose terms of reference for
> an NC task force or other group.
> [Appendix 2: Resolutions Passed at Melbourne ICANN Board Meeting]
> [Resolution 01.38] The Board expresses its concern over likely confusion
> about the nature and implications of the numerous existing
> internationalization
> testbeds and pre-registration services, and urges wider and more intensive
> education and dialogue among the global Internet community.
> [Resolution 01.39] In order to promote better understanding of the
> and policy issues surrounding the internationalization of domain names,
> Board designates an internal working group consisting of Masanobu Katoh
> (chair), Vint Cerf, Karl Auerbach, and Ivan Campos to identify the various
> internationalization efforts and the issues they raise, to engage in
> dialogue with
> technical experts and other participants in these efforts, and to make
> appropriate
> recommendations to the Board.
> [Resolution 01.40] The Board asks that the working group submit a report
> on its efforts at the next Board meeting in June.
> [Appendix 3: Communiqué of the Governmental Advisory Committee]
> With regard to international domain names (IDNs), the GAC confirms
> the importance and interests of this development to the benefit of
> users worldwide. Further, regarding IDNs, including testbed initiatives,
> the GAC considers that three key public policy areas need to be kept
> at the forefront of the considerations of ICANN, its Supporting
> Organisations
> and the broader Internet community. These are:
> the essential importance of interoperability of the present and future
> Internet;
> the prevention of cybersquatting and resolution of disputes in the IDNs
> environments should be addressed by appropriate means and processes
> such as an appropriate dispute resolution policy and implementation of
> sunrise periods; and the application of competition and market access,
> consumer protection and intellectual property principles. Specifically,
> states that:
> Anti-cybersquatting principles and mechanisms should translate from the
> current ASCII character set environment to any non-ASCII character set
> environments, and that technological implementation should appropriately
> keep pace with any developments in this area.
> Preserving the universal connectivity and accessibility domain name system
> is vital to the continuance of the Internet as a global network. While
> various
> technical experimentation may need to be investigated in the pursuit of
> unified
> standards, ultimately, a unified or interoperable standards for
> domain names should be achieved, with the ability of systems to work
> ubiquitously across the Internet.
> IDNs registration in top level domains should benefit from effective and
> fair
> conditions of competition, at appropriate levels and scale of activity.
> should take steps to communicate to operators of IDNs testbeds that they
> should note any legal obligation they have to inform consumers regarding
> both
> the status and operation of their testbeds, including the status of their
> registrations
> within that testbed, particularly in circumstances where registrations are
> taken
> prior to full system implementation.
> ===============================================
>                                     [End of Message]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>