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 <[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] > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------ 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] ------------------------------------------------------------