[IDN-WG] ALAC Response to the VIP Proposed Project Plan and Next Steps

Cheryl Langdon-Orr langdonorr at gmail.com
Thu Apr 12 20:27:28 UTC 2012


I support these points Olivier...  Rinalia you asked me specifically  if
more (in addition to the Chinese ) case needs to be made...  My view is to
NOT pick out any cases rather to be generic and approach "them all" with a
look to who is 'ready' approach ...BUT if ALAC did highlight cases I'd use
all the "brush scripts" or CJK's

>From my Android Tablet...

Cheryl  Langdon-Orr (CLO)
tweeter clo3
http://about.me/cheryl.Langdon-Orr
www.langdon-orr. name
 On Apr 11, 2012 8:14 PM, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl at gih.com> wrote:

>  Thank you very much for this follow-up Rinalia.
>
> I would just add a couple of notes which I have also recognized on the
> call:
> - the ALAC's concerns regarding following a standard path vs. looking at
> each variant case in turn appear to be already taken into account according
> to some of the comments made by Dennis Jennings. So it appears that each
> variant type will be studied separately, along with its own timeline,
> rather than a one-size-fits-all scenario
> - the point of timing issues which the ALAC is concerned with, appears to
> have already been echoed by other commenters and to be taken into account,
> with an amended time-line which would bring forth some of the segments
> allocated to 2013, to an earlier start.
>
> I personally find the matters of pointing out communities readiness to
> implement IDN variant very important indeed. It is one thing to approach
> such implementation in a top-down manner, but another to allow for
> communities desiring to work on their variants, to be pro-actively able to
> engage ICANN in rolling out IDN variants for their script. Thanks for
> pointing this out, it's an excellent point.
>
> Thanks for your draft which we can work on, in an accelerated procedure.
> May I suggest that comments/discussion takes place according to the
> following schedule:
>
> *Call for comments closing time*: Wednesday 18 April 2012 @ 23:59 UTC --
> that gives it 1 week from today. If this group reaches consensus before
> this deadline, all the better & the statement can be submitted
> *Statement to be submitted*:  Friday 20 April 2012
> *ALAC Vote starts*: Friday 20 April at 20:00 UTC and ends on 27 April @
> 23:59 UTC
> *Vote reminder on*: 25 April @ 0:00 UTC
>
> So the clock is ticking.
>
> I have also made a copy of your draft & added it to the relevant Wiki
> policy development page. (and also updated the new start/end date for the
> public comment)
> This is on: https://community.icann.org/x/jp-bAQ
>
> In order to have a way to track things, may WG members (and any other
> commenters) use the Wiki's "comment" feature, please?
> As a reminder, if you do not have a log-in for the WIKI, please ask one
> from staff at atlarge.icann.org . In the meantime, you may also comment
> without logging in -- just you identify yourself in your response so as for
> it to become a comment from more than an anonymous user.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Olivier
>
> On 11/04/2012 10:25, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote :
>
> Dear IDN WG,
>
> We had a webinar today where the VIP Team re-presented their work.  It was
> a pity that many of our WG members could not participate.  *They made one
> point of clarification regarding the treatment of communities who consider
> themselves ready to implement IDN Variants - that it would only happen
> after the label generation toolset work is done.   In their project plan
> this can only begin mid of FY13. *
>
> ALAC is requested to make its response/comment to the proposed plan before
> the end of next week so that the VIP Team can incorporate our input in
> their next steps.
>
> Below is my draft attempt at a response (based on my limited
> understanding) so that we can meet this deadline.  Note: I draw heavily
> from Edmon's previous drafts before and after Costa Rica, with tweaks and
> adjustments based on the clarification made during today's webinar.
>
> Gaps:
> 1. The issue on COST requires more content and justification - Tijani,
> perhaps you have some ideas.  Otherwise, we might have to drop this
> aspect.
> 2. Would be good if reference to communities who are ready to implement
> IDN Variants could be expanded beyond the Chinese case if they are
> available - Cheryl, any thoughts?
>
> Next Steps:
> 1. Staff - pls upload to a wikipage.
> 2. Edmon - pls check overall content.
> 3. Other WG members - please contribute.
>
> Note: I have not proofread this draft.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Rinalia
>
> [Draft] ALAC Response to the VIP Proposed Project Plan for Next Steps
>
>
>
> *Acknowledgement of VIP Team Achievement*
>
> The ALAC congratulates the IDN VIP team upon the successful completion of
> the case study reports and the final integrated report.  We also wish to
> record our appreciation for the outreach efforts of the VIP Team aimed at
> enhancing the community’s understanding about the outcome of its work to
> date as well as the thinking/framework that guided its work and the
> processes entailed.
>
>
>
> *Significance of IDNs and Implications on Future Work of the VIP Team*
>
> The ALAC reiterates its continued recognition of the significance and
> importance of IDNs, including IDN TLDs in enhancing diversity and embracing
> multilingualism on the Internet.  We believe that every culture and every
> language is unique and that the implementation of IDN and IDN Variants
> would serve to make the Internet more inclusive and representative of the
> world that we live in.
>
> Given the importance of the work, the ALAC calls on the VIP Team to ensure
> that the conduct of its future work is accountable, transparent and does
> not duplicate work that has or is being done within or without the ICANN
> community.  Towards this end, we urge the VIP Team to continuously inform
> the community on its work and progress, and to draw synergize wherever
> possible by leveraging on the work and expertise of the wider Internet
> community.
>
> The ALAC is pleased with the VIP Team’s interest in engaging the wider
> Internet community, which the Team expressed during the ICANN meeting Costa
> Rica in March 2012.  In doing so, We request that the VIP Team maintain a
> high level of transparency and clarify the project basis for engaging
> consultants vs. community volunteers vs. ICANN staff.
>
>
>
> *Comments on the Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) Variant Issues
> Project (VIP) Proposed Project Plan *
>
>
>
> *Approach*
>
> The approach taken by the VIP Team is a standardized, universal and
> comprehensive one, which has merit in that it takes into consideration
> aspects of fairness and security.  The approach hinges crucially upon the
> expectation that it is possible to develop a comprehensive codepoint
> repertoire and label generation rule-set within a specific timeframe.  The
> VIP Team has been careful to clarify to the ALAC during a webinar on 11
> April 2012 that until the codepoint repertoire and label-generation
> rule-set are complete, the implementation of any IDN Variant would not be
> considered regardless of the level of community readiness.
>
>
>
> The ALAC concern regarding the VIP Team’s approach is as follows:
>
> 1.     The standardized is contrary to the community consensus on
> appropriate approaches to the IDN Variant issues, which are highly diverse.
> A standardized approach also discriminates against communities who
> consider themselves ready to implement IDN Variants.
>
> 2.     Assuming that it is possible to develop a comprehensive codepoint
> repertoire and label generation rule-set within the period specified in the
> proposed project plan, the VIP Team will only be ready to work with
> communities who can demonstrate that they are ready to implement IDN
> Variants by the middle of Fiscal Year 2013.
>
> 3.     The process, timing and criteria for communities to demonstrate
> their readiness to implement IDN variants are not addressed.  This set of
> information would serve as an invaluable guide for communities regardless
> of whether they are early entrants or late entrants to IDN Variant
> implementation.
>
>
>
> The ALAC recommends the following:
>
>
>
> 1.     Adopt an inclusive multistakeholder bottom-up approach to
> codepoint repertoire development that is consistent with the ICANN IDN
> Guidelines and relies on the community consensus in identifying and
> determining codepoints by language/script or groups of languages/scripts.
>
> 2.     Develop a framework based on the findings of the integrated report
> that would serve as a checklist/guide for language communities to develop
> their IDN Variant TLD policy and or implementation plan.  Such a
> checklist would include aspects that include codepoint repertoire,
> codepoint overlap, label generation ruleset, types and states of variants,
> etc.
>
> 3.     Clarify the process, timing and criteria for engaging with
> communities who consider themselves ready to implement IDN Variants.  In
> addition engage the ICANN channels for reaching out to various language
> communities to raise their awareness of these considerations.
>
>
>
> *Cost*
>
> The ALAC would appreciate an elaboration on the financial basis of the
> proposed project.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Risk*
>
> The ALAC understands and appreciates that security risk considerations are
> paramount. The introduction of new technological advancement however,
> requires balancing risk considerations with benefits to be derived.  The
> demand for IDN Variants and the findings of the VIP case study reports
> indicate that the benefits of implementing IDN Variant TLDs out-weigh the
> risks.
>
>
>
> *Way Forward*
>
> Given that the technical community, including the IETF and the IAB, has
> iterated that the issue of IDN Variants cannot be solved with a technical
> solution based on current DNS standards, the ALAC agrees with the view
> that, in the immediate term, the implementation of IDN Variant TLDs should
> be focused on:
>
> 1.     The engagement of communities in developing codepoint repertoire
> and label generation rule-set.
>
> 2.     The development of a process, timeline and criteria for working
> with communities who are ready to implement IDN Variants.
>
> 3.     The development of a framework that guides language communities in
> developing their IDN Variant policy and implementation plan.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
>


More information about the IDN-WG mailing list