[council] Updated terms of reference for IDN-gTLDs policy development

["Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello All,

Below is an update of the terms of reference for further discussion on
this list prior to the meeting next Thursday 3 August 2006.   The
updated terms of reference specifically address the work underway on new
gTLDs in PDP-Dec05, so that the IDN PDP doesn't repeat work already
undertaken.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin



Proposed Terms of Reference for Policy Development Relating to IDN at
the Top-Level of the Domain Name System

The following terms of reference for further work are focused on GNSO
activities and therefore address gTLD considerations. Subsequent to
working group assessment of the Preliminary Issues Report, they were
adopted by the GNSO Council on xx August 2006. 


1. Introduction of Generic Top-Level Domains with IDN Labels (IDN-gTLDs)

        a. Given the urgency of current interest in fully localized
domain names, and the limited range of potential outcomes of the
impending technical tests of devices for entering top-level IDN labels
into the root zone, the policy for the inclusion of IDN-gTLDs can begin
to be assessed.

        b. Assuming that top-level IDN labels will be added to the root
zone, awaiting the outcome of the requisite initial trials, address the
following additional terms of reference.


2. Selection Criteria for Top-Level Domains with IDN Labels

        a. Taking into account the background, considerations and
findings regarding selection criteria in the New gTLD PDP [PDP-Dec05],
develop modified or additional criteria for the inclusion of IDN labels
in subsequent action toward ICANN's goals of expanding the use and
usability of the Internet.


3. Allocation Methods for Top-Level Domains with IDN Labels

        a. Taking into account the background, considerations and
findings regarding allocation methods in the New gTLD PDP [PDP-Dec05],
develop modified or additional allocation methods that may be applied to
gTLDs with IDN labels.


4. Policy to Guide Contractual Conditions for Top-Level Domains with IDN
Labels

        a. Taking into account the background, considerations and
findings regarding contractual conditions in the New gTLD PDP
[PDP-Dec05], develop policies to guide the specific contractual criteria
needed for gTLDs with IDN labels, to be made publicly available prior to
any application rounds.


5. Additional Policy Considerations Regarding Top-Level Domains with IDN
Labels
 
        a. Determining that a proposed new IDN label is adequately
differentiated from a pre-existing label requires comparison in graphic,
phonetic, and semantic terms.  Two levels of differentiation are
necessary, of which the one pertains to situations where the two labels
are being considered for delegation to the same operator, and the other
where the labels are to be delegated to independent registries.  The
former case can be further subdivided into two situations.  In the one,
the intention is for the same set of sub-domain names to appear under
multiple TLD labels, and in the other independent name trees are to be
established.

        b. With specific regard to the preceding point, determine
whether the script used for an IDN-gTLD label can, or should, be
exclusively propagated on all lower levels in the sub-domain tree
(allowing for the general exceptions attaching to that script as
referenced in the ICANN IDN Guidelines).  If such a procedure is viable,
intention to implement it may serve as a differentiation criterion or
otherwise be invoked in the consideration of a request for a new label.

        c. Be particularly mindful of detail which, although initially
considered in the IDN context, may otherwise be relevant to the New gTLD
PDP. The association of two separate labels with the same TLD is an
example of this, given that the linguistic justification for such action
can as easily be derived from two languages that can be adequately
represented using ASCII characters as it can from a situation where one
or both labels requires IDN representation.

        d. The implementation of policies based on an aliasing mechanism
(as implicit in Section 5a above) may require the development of new
technical resources if the tests of the currently available alternatives
(as referenced in Section 1a above) determine that none are viable. In
general, care should be taken to recognize distinctions between
technical and policy concerns, as well as cultural and political
considerations. Addressing their manifold interdependencies should be
approached as collaborative action with other organizations as
appropriate to any given case.