[council] Explanation and background on agenda item 5 - Board resolution on ccNSO/GAC questions

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

> Item 5: Approach to handling board request on GAC IDN questions (20  
> min)
> http://gac.icann.org/web/communiques/gac28com.pdf
This item is based on the Board's resolution that the ICANN  
community, including the GNSO work:
- provide the board responses on the 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.
- "work collaboratively, taking the technical limitations and  
requirements into consideration, to explore both an interim and an  
overall approach to IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1 two- 
letter codes and recommend a course of action to the Board in a  
timely manner. "
The GSNO council needs to decide on how it wants to approach these  
two resolutions.
thanks
a.

--------

Background:

The IDN outcomes report
      http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/idn-wg-fr-22mar07.htm
did discuss this question and did report support but not agreement:

> 4.2.9
>
> Support for a country’s rights to define/reserve IDN strings for  
> the country name.
> Alternative view; to also accept a country’s responsibility/right  
> to approve any IDN gTLD strings featuring its particular script, if  
> unique for that country.
> Alternative view; to also acknowledge a country’s right to  
> influence the definitions/tables of its scripts/languages.
> Alternative view; to require a country’s support for an IDN gTLD  
> string in “its” script, in analogy with the considerations for geo- 
> political names.
> Alternative view: recognition that countries’ rights are limited to  
> their respective jurisdictions.
> Note: There are potential political issues in the use of scripts,  
> as some countries/regions claim “rights” to the standards for their  
> scripts. This has also been expressed as “a need to prove the  
> support of the respective community for accepting a TLD in its  
> particular script”.

The RN WG also looked into the issues of ccTLDs.

In terms of IDM 2 character it recommended:

> Two-character IDNs need further work including outreach to
> experts and discussion related to policies for two-character
> IDNs and IDN versions of the ISO 3166 list. This is a
> possible area for further work by the IDN WG.
And in terms of Geographic names it recommended:

> Top Level (ASCII and Unicode strings):
> In order to approve the introduction of new gTLDs using geographic
> identifiers, ICANN shall require the solicitation of input from GAC
> members(s) and/or government(s) associated with the potential
> geographic string (ASCII and/or Unicode).
>
> Additionally, Registries incorporated under the laws of those  
> countries that
> have expressly supported the guidelines of the WIPO Standing Committee
> on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical
> Indications as adopted by the WIPO General Assembly (ìMember Statesî),
> or have other related applicable national laws must take  
> appropriate action
> to comply with those guidelines and those national laws.  Registries
> incorporated under the laws of those countries that have not expressly
> supported the guidelines of the WIPO Standing Committee on the Law of
> Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications as adopted
> by the WIPO General Assembly (ìNon-Member Statesî) must take
> appropriate action to comply with any related applicable national  
> laws.


------------

Full text of resolutions.

> Item 5: Approach to handling board request on GAC IDN questions (20  
> min)
> http://gac.icann.org/web/communiques/gac28com.pdf
>
>  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.
> Resolved (07.___), the ICANN Board respectfully requests that the  
> ICANN community including the GNSO, ccNSO, GAC, and ALAC continue  
> to work collaboratively, taking the technical limitations and  
> requirements into consideration, to explore both an interim and an  
> overall approach to IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1 two- 
> letter codes and recommend a course of action to the Board in a  
> timely manner.