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