<<<
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
>>>
|