RE: [council] [Fwd: Resolution of the ccNSO Council on timing of the new IDN gTLD and "Fast Track" process]

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

After our joint session today, it sounds like this motion is no longer
needed.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 2:49 PM
> To: GNSO Council
> Subject: [council] [Fwd: Resolution of the ccNSO Council on 
> timing of the new IDN gTLD and "Fast Track" process]
> 
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> From: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Chris Disspain <ceo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Resolution of the ccNSO Council on timing of the new 
> IDN gTLD and "Fast Track" process
> Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 09:51:23 -0800
> 
> Avri,
> This is the resolution of the ccNSO Council Chris referred 
> to. It is also published on the ccnso website (www.ccnso.icann.org). 
> Kind regards,
> Bart
> ---------------------
> 
> "Resolution ccNSO Council  19 February 2009 on timing of the 
> launch of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track and new IDN gTLD process.
> Background
> 
> In 2007 the ccNSO, and the ICANN community generally, 
> discussed the possibility of using an interim approach to IDN 
> ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes to 
> meet near-term demands and to gain experience with mechanisms 
> for the selection and delegation of IDN ccTLDs that would 
> also inform a policy development process aimed at creating an 
> overall policy on IDN ccTLDs. 
> 
> To that end in November 2007 the ICANN Board requested the 
> chairs of the ALAC, ccNSO , GAC, GNSO and SSAC to establish a 
> working group (the IDNC Working Group) to develop and report 
> on feasible methods, if any, that would enable the 
> introduction, in a timely manner and in a manner that ensures 
> the continued security and stability of the Internet, of a 
> limited number of IDN ccTLDs while the overall policy is 
> being developed.
> 
> After extensive community comment, the IDNC Working Group 
> submitted its final report to the ICANN Board.
> 
> In May 2008 the Board directed ICANN staff to post the IDNC 
> WG final report for public comments, commence work on 
> implementation issues in consultation with relevant 
> stakeholders and submit a detailed implementation plan 
> including a list of any outstanding issues to the Board in 
> advance of the ICANN Cairo meeting in November 2008.
> 
> Resolution
> The ccNSO Council notes that the GNSO Council submitted 
> substantive comments on the IDNC WG final report. Included in 
> those comments was a statement that "the introduction of IDN 
> gTLDs or IDN ccTLDs should not be delayed because of lack of 
> readiness of one category, but if they are not introduced at 
> the same time, steps should be taken so that neither category 
> is advantaged or disadvantaged, and procedures should be 
> developed to avoid possible conflicts" (GNSO Council 
> submission, 15 August 2008).
> 
> The ccNSO Council also notes the GNSO Council resolution of 8 
> January 2009, which states that the GNSO Council strongly 
> believes that neither the new gTLD nor ccTLD fast track 
> process should result in IDN TLDs being entered into the root 
> before the other unless both the GNSO and ccNSO so agree.
> 
> The ccNSO Council notes the apparent change in the view of 
> the GNSO regarding the timing of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track and 
> the new IDN gTLD process. 'Prior to stating the ccNSO Council 
> position, we would welcome a discussion with the GNSO Council 
> to gain a better understanding of the apparent change in view."
> 
>