<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Final Proposed version 2.0 of IDN Guidelines posted
*Ross....
I am a bit confused about your concerns expressed in your e-mail below ..
With the exception of one consistency edit, the wording you are
expressing concerns about was taken _straight out_ of the version of the
specific document "Guidelines for the Implementation of
Internationalized Domain Names" *that was approved June 20, 2003. *
These Guidelines were developed collaboratively by ICANN and leading
Internationaized Domain Names (IDN) registries. Version 1.0 of these
Guidelines was published on 20 June 2003, coinciding with the launch of
deployment of IDNs under the IETF's Proposed Standard reflected in RFCs
3490, 3491, and 3492.
The implementation approach set forth in these Guidelines was endorsed
by the ICANN Board on 27 March 2003
</minutes/minutes-27mar03.htm#InternationalizedDomainNames>.
Ken Stubbs *
Ross Rader wrote:
I've missed the boat on the public comment period, so I would expect
these concerns are moot as it relates to the board's consideration of
the document.
However for those that might be interested, I wanted to express the
concern that these "guidelines" are moving substantial policy making
responsibilities from the GNSO to the gTLD administrators. This scope
of policy responsibility is only suitable in the ccTLD context. Given
the authorship, I am not surprised that this was written up in this
fashion. I still have faint hope that the board sees fit to clean up
this issue prior to endorsing the document as an acceptable set of
guidelines.
This comment pertains to guideline six specifically, which reads:
"6. Top-level domain registries will work collaboratively with
relevant stakeholders to develop IDN-specific registration policies,
with the objective of achieving consistent approaches to IDN
implementation for the benefit of DNS users worldwide. Top-level
domain registries will work collaboratively with each other to address
common issues, for example by forming or appointing a consortium to
coordinate contact with
external communities, elicit the assistance of support groups, and
establish global
fora."
There is also a larger policy issue which has not been dealt with at
any level, which I had hoped would have been clarified through this
process, which is the extent to which the relationship between ICANN
and the gTLD administrators permits the registries to arbitrarily
offer these types of services. I am not sure whether or not it would
be appropriate for the registry constituency to address this in the
context of IDNs, but this should have been explicitly addressed prior
to this work being undertaken.
-ross
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|