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] ------------------------------------------------------------