Dear Milton and others,

I have sometimes read his posting messages before in some other lists.
Here I attach one of his recent postings.
That observation seems to be very balanced.

Then, I have one question in this procedure. What should we review for any 
applicant? What else could be a must requirement for application if it 
does have some basic requirements?


regards,

Chun

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: JFC Morfin <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Nov 6, 2006 10:18 AM 
Subject: [ga] IDN and IANA
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc: [log in to unmask]

 
The IGF Athens meeting was quite interesting. I was surprised by the 
pressure that ICANN put on IDNs. I did not see any new technical 
solution (Falstrom explained that the IETF was active on the issue, 
but it looks they really need help more than anything else). Is it : 

- because Verisign starts sending me (and probably many others) CNNIC 
Chinese.Chinese Name propositions?
- or because Bob Khan excited people in documenting the way his 
Handles could be a more open solution? 
- or because Google could represent a new opportunity?
- or because there are new possibilities in Windows Vista (may be 
they listen to what we explain t hem for years?)
- or because IE7 makes now credible the ML alias/keyword propositions? 

IDNs are necessarily the future of the DNS. I am surprised the GNSO 
has no IDN committee (I heard one could be formed?). The issues we 
face are not that much technical but strategic (there are two 
technical problems - the number of TLDs and the phishing, now IE7 
supports punycode).

The ITU General Secretary said that on his opinion the Internet of 
the future would be more national and local than it is today. This is 
also my opinion. I discussed with the candidate to the ITU General 
Secretariat who was in Athens: we were not in full agreement but he 
would obviously want things to move ahead and open the ITU debate in 
an IETF like manner. However, a Multilingual/Multinational Internet 
is not what the IETF has technically in mind while it is not (yet?) 
what the ITU can politically target [they are (today) purely Gov 
oriented].

This is why it is, now and not in a few months, a good opportunity to 
stabilise ICANN for the years to come (in relation with their DNSSEC 
entity?) as an IDN organiser - before the MINC does it. Since the 
IETF will not deliver anything grandiose, ICANN should show what it 
can do quick, before there is a grassroots move - or to objectively 
ally with it? IMHO the ccNSO is not in a position to do anything 
exciting, but the GNSO could - considering the governance related issues?

I also reminded the idea that IDN revenues should in priority serve 
the language empowerment work - as .org benefits to ISOC - but in 
better proportion. There is a better coordination with ISO 3166 MA 
also to consider. etc.

Any suggestion/comment?
jfc



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
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:   [log in to unmask]
------------------------------------------------------------