ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] ccNSO-GAC Issues Report on IDN Issues



Hi,

While I tend to agree with your way of putting this, I am not sure there is universal agreement on this. I am not even sure if everyone, or a supermajority, within the GNSO council agrees.

From conversations I have been having since I started trying to understand the scope of the IDNC and the issue of trying to get more then 2 GNSO members to participate I have perceived diametrically
opposed basic assumptions (with a variety of variants):

1. The entire name space including IDNs, with the exception of 3166-1 2 character ccTLD space, is
currently within the GNSO remit.

2. All gTLDs that have been allocated or will be allocated are within the remit of the GNSO, but they not within the remit until they are allocated to gTLD space. Unassigned name space in not within
either SOs remit until assigned.

Personally I have always thought it was the first option and the second option had not even occurred to
me until someone argued from that perspective.

This appears to be a key basic assumption in trying to determine whether the GNSO merits equal
participation or representation in the IDNC.

1. If you hold to the first point of view or some variant of it, then the methods to be determined in the IDNC are the first steps in the reapportionment of TLD name space. I.e a method is determined by which some of the TLD name space that is currently within the GNSO remit is assigned to the ccNSO remit. In which case the GNSO belongs at the table as an equal participant with the ccNSO and GAC

2. If you hold to the second point of view, or some variant of it, then the methods to be determined by the IDNC are the remit of the ccNSO and GAC. and while it s appropriate that the GNSO have representatives, essentially liaisons, within the group, the GNSO is not fundamentally responsible for the decisions the group
makes.

This is an issue for which we need to understand the GNSO position on in order to finish the work on the GNSO response to the issues paper and an issue that affects the GNSO position in regard to the the IDNC.

thanks

a.



On 20 nov 2007, at 17.24, philip.sheppard@xxxxxx wrote:


Avri raises some good points about the potential breadth of what we may be saying to the CCSO/GAC. This seems to be a function of us wanting to leave
the tough questions to the CCSO/GAC!

Our approach could be turned around.

Assumption
In the absence of an ICANN policy there will be NO IDN names reserved in
the CC space. They will ALL be available to any applicant via our new
process in the g space. The task before ICANN is to create a reserved
list/allocation for CC related IDNS - or not.

Conclusion and a key question
The question should be therefore who serves the public interest best with respect to CC related IDNS? A CC registry/Government or any one at all?

If we can answer this question, - with criteria to assess the public
interest - we will perhaps advance the debate without needing to address
issues of volume.

Philip









<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>