GNSO Council Teleconference Minutes
|
12 July 2007 Proposed agenda and documents List of attendees: 8 Council Members GNSO Council Liaisons Rita Rodin - ICANN Board member Avri Doria chaired this meeting AOB - possible additions Item 1: Update any Statements of Interest Item 2: Approval of GNSO Council minutes Item 3: Review of Pending Action Items (GNSO Council chair will update this table after each meeting, if not more often, and suggest that Council go through it quickly at the beginning of each of the Council's monthly meetings.) Pending action list - Contractual Conditions Item 4: Follow up on Domain Tasting decision Resolved (07.___), the ICANN Board respectfully requests that that the ICANN community including the GNSO, ccNSO, GAC, and ALAC provide the Board with responses to the published list of issues and questions that need to be addressed in order to move forward with IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes in a manner that ensures the continued security and stability of the Internet. The Board requests status reports regarding progress by the conclusion of the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles in October 2007. Avri Doria suggested that some of the possible issues to consider were: Olof Nordling commented that the joint efforts of the ccNSO and the GAC had produced an Issues Report Selection of IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1 two letter codes http://www.icann.org/topics/idn/ccnso-gac-issues-report-on-idn-09jul07.pdf Not all countries had advanced at the same pace and it was realised that there had to be an intermediate as well a long term solution to the IDN ccTLD issue which prompted the two track approach proposed in the Board resolution. Cary Karp commented further that it would be difficult to maintain the dichotomy between the generic and the country code top level domains and the approach to the issue should be an early recognition that there could be a completely different type of top level domain emerging from the current ones. Rita Rodin commented that if a double track for examining the issues would be possible, it would be helpful to pursue it. Action Item on Resolution Chuck Gomes, with Olof Nordling as staff support, volunteered to coordinate and work with a small group to Avri Doria suggested taking it upon herself to talk to other communities and gather ideas about how to work collaboratively as well as soliciting input from the ad hoc group on the second part of the resolution In the final report, http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/final-report-rn-wg-23may07.htm, the Reserved Names working group recommended additional work for several name categories. - Recommendation 2, ICANN & IANA names at the Top level, IDN: For all but “example”, reservations are not required for Unicode versions in various scripts, or ACE versions of such translations or transliterations if they exist. - Recommendation 3, ICANN & IANA names at the 2nd & 3rd levels, IDN: For all but “example”, reservations are not required for Unicode versions in various scripts, or ACE versions of such translations or transliterations if they exist. Do not try to translate ‘example’ into Unicode versions for various scripts or to reserve any ACE versions of such translations or transliterations if they exist, except on a case by case basis as proposed by given registries. The RN-WG validated the above two recommendations with IDN experts but suggested that the final recommendation be tested one more time with IDN experts. Upon further discussion, the Council decided that no further validation was needed so the recommendations 2 and 3 will remain unchanged. - Recommendation 4, Symbols at all levels: We recommend that current practice be maintained, so that no symbols other than the ‘-’ [hyphen] be considered for use at any level, unless technology at some time permits the use of symbols. Cary Karp promised to rewrite this recommendation pertaining to symbols. Chuck will follow-up with Cary in this regard. - Recommendation 5, Single and Two Character IDNs at all levels: Single and two-character U-labels on the top level and second level of a domain name should not be restricted in general. At the top level, requested strings should be analyzed on a case by case basis in the new gTLD process depending on the script and language used in order to determine whether the string should be granted for allocation in the DNS. Single and two character labels at the second level and the third level if applicable should be available for registration, provided they are consistent with the IDN Guidelines. Examples of IDNs include .酒, 東京.com, تونس.icom.museum. Additional examples will be provided by Avri Doria and Edmon Chung; Liz Williams will add the new examples. - Recommendation 7, Single Letters and Digits at the 2nd level: We recommend that single letters and digits be released at the second level in future gTLDs, and that those currently reserved in existing gTLDs should be released. This release should be contingent upon the use of appropriate allocation frameworks. More work may be needed. If an allocation method is needed the whole Council will be involved. Liz Williams confirmed that ICANN staff was working on this issue. - Recommendations 20-30, Geographic and Controversial names. These recommendations are being dealt with by the full new gTLD committee. Avri Doria suggested that the items be kept on the pending action item list http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-action-list.htm The staff report was not available, but was scheduled to be published one week before the GNSO Council meeting on August 9, 2007 where the final discussion and vote would take place. 8.1 Review suggestion for full day equivalent session on New gTLD recommendations Philip Sheppard suggested that the implementation plans should also be clearly defined because without implementation details certain questions were left unanswered. Ute Decker empasised that not only the constituencies should be made aware of the tutorials, but the business world who needed to be informed of implementation details. Avri Doria suggested that the staff produce a briefing on implementation plans and that another session would be needed by staff, not during the Los Angeles meetings but early in the new year at the next ICANN meeting. Proposal to try an experiment with the Public Forum and public council meeting in LA. Instead of the current arrangement of a meeting for listening and then a meeting for talking, we could divide a 4 hour meeting up into topical sections. Each topic could then be structured to include: Avri Doria commented in response to a suggestion that the GNSO Council meeting and the GNSO public forum should be made more interactive, that a different meeting format would be considered for the Los Angeles meetings, and requested input from the constituencies on this. It was generally agreed that there should be a period between the public input and the Council pronouncing a vote, such as a follow up Council meeting shortly afterwards. Avri Doria proposed drafting an agenda would be divided into topical blocks for the GNSO Council meeting and GNSO Public Forum in Los Angeles. 9.1 Role of vice chair 9.4 Vote of thanks to Alistair Dixon Avri Doria on behalf of the GNSO Council, proposed a vote of thanks to Alistair Dixon for all his work as a councillor on several working groups and committees. It was Alistair Dixon's last meeting as he resigned from the Council as the CBUC representative. The motion passed by unanimous acclamation. Avri Doria formally closed the meeting and thanked everyone for their participation. Next GNSO Council teleconference will be on 9 August 2007 at 12:00 UTC. Item 4. GNSO Secretariat to provide Mike Rodenbaugh with the subscribed members to the domain name tasting ad hoc group and suggest meeting times. Item 5.1 Chuck Gomes, with Olof Nordling as staff support, volunteered to coordinate and work with a small group to prepare a draft paper for Council consideration in response to the resolution. Avri Doria suggested taking it upon herself to talk to other communities and gather ideas about how to work collaboratively as well as soliciting input from the ad hoc group on the second part of the resolution Item 8.1 |