At 4:42 PM -0400 6/24/05, Milton Mueller wrote:
>Haven't read the proposal yet, but I don't agree at all with your
>conclusion Adam. We need uniform process and shouldn't discriminate
>against IDNs or apply "special" (read: more restrictive) criteria to
>them.


Who said anything about more restrictive?


>But perhaps you can explain why you think this should be the case.
>


A few reasons.

IDNs will require a very different process, no one's quite sure how
they will work.  On the other hand there are no technical problems
with introducing ascii TLDs, they are ready for "predictable,
straightforward, transparent, and objective procedures".  We don't
need any more excuses for delays and coupling with progress on IDNs
will introduce delays, the focus should be on introducing a steady
stream of ascii TLDs while beginning a process for IDNs.

There's pressure to get on with IDN implementation, not talk. Delays
searching for the perfect and safe process will not help. James Seng
and I wrote some comments for WGIG I think relevant
<http://www.wgig.org/docs/Comment-GLOCOM.doc>, time now to actually
begin work getting IDNs in the root and working through the problems
as they come up.  But this is very different from what's needed for
ascii TLDs.

Different interests need to be involved, IDNs most likely led by
ccTLD and language groups. I think under an ICANN guided process is
fine, but the GNSO is not the right body to lead (northern, industry
lead... I hope we have learnt something from WSIS) as some
constituency council members have already suggested.

OK?

Thanks,

Adam



>Dr. Milton Mueller
>Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>http://www.digital-convergence.org
>http://www.internetgovernance.org
>
>>>>  Adam Peake <[log in to unmask]> 06/24/05 8:27 AM >>>
>Think the process as suggested is very flawed.  IDNs should not be
>considered in the same process as traditional ascii TLDs.