[lac-discuss-en] Fwd: [ALAC-Internal] Draft of Comments on Fast-Track IDN ccTLDs

[Carlton Samuels]

I am sharing this view from Hong - Asia-Pacific ALAC Member - that shows
some insight into two of our most vexed problems.

Carlton

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Hong Xue <hongxueipr at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 8:24 AM
Subject: [ALAC-Internal] Draft of Comments on Fast-Track IDN ccTLDs
To: ALAC - internal <alac-admin at icann.org>


ICANN published the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Draft Implementation Plan on 23
October 2008. The public comment period is open until 8 December 2008.

Since ALAC has always been active in the consultation and policy advice
process on fast-track IDN ccTLDs, I suggest take the opportunity to send in
our comments sooner rather than later. To expediate drafting, I made the 0.1
version for your review:


The at-large community is inspired that the long-awaited fast-track IDN
ccTLDs could be implemented in as early as 3 months. The community notes
from the Implementation Plan that the Support from the relevant script
community for the IDN table is required for evaluation among the other
documentation of endorsement. The IANA Procedure for Delegation or
Redelegation of ccTLDs <http://www.iana.org/domains/root/delegation-guide/>,
also clearly requires that relevant ccTLD delegation or redelegation request
show how it will serve the local interest in the country. In the case of an
IDN ccTLD, the local interest would be more specific. Apparently, the ccTLDs
need the support of the local user community for the fast-track application
and implementation. On the other hand, the user community needs the support
IDN ccTLDs.

It is in the mutual interest of both the IDN ccTLD registry community and
the local IDN user community to keep a very close, cooperative and
supportive relationship. Presently, many ccTLD registries are actually
supporting the local user organizations in various ways. The outstanding
examples are healthy interaction and collaboration between the ccTLDs (such
as .br and .au) and local ALSes on policy consultations and community
services. The launch of IDN ccTLDs opens up new opportunities for both
community. If we take translation as a example, we can see the great
potential coming up. The IDN ccTLDs demonstrate the registries have the
relevant capacity to provide the services in local scripts. Then, it would
be reasonable for the local user community to rely on the registries to
translate the ICANN policies and other documents into the local languages.
Such *distributive* model, as contrast to the present ICANN centralized
model, would enhance efficiency through linking up the ICANN and its
different constituencies and ensure the sustainability of the resources.
With respect to ICANN, the clauses on community services should be
incorporated and enforced in the IDN ccTLD delegation agreements. Also,
ICANN should take the IDN ccTLD's community services or contribution as the
valid contribution to the ICANN as stated in the Implementation Plan so that
all the stakeholders would have the momentum to develop the system. We also
hope that the community-based gTLDs could take the similar path to
consolidate the connection with the user community.


Hong
_______________________________________________
ALAC-Internal mailing list
ALAC-Internal at atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists.icann.org

ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
At-Large <http://st.icann.org/alacAt-Large> Website:
http://atlarge.icann.org