RE: [council] Draft - Appeal to Board relating to IDNC WG

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Avri. This was very well written.  I compliment the group in
getting this down in writing.

In case we do decide to send this document, here are a few minor edits
and some other suggested changes that I think are nonmaterial in terms
of the content plus a few observations and questions.

I think it would be helpful to do a global change of "Council" to "GNSO
Council" just to make it clear which Council we are talking about
because the ccNSO has a Council as well.

1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: change "limited number of IDN TLD
representing territories" to "limited number of IDN TLDs representing
territories".

End of 2nd paragraph: I suggest we change 'IDN ccTLDs' to 'IDN TLDs
associated with ISO 3166-1 country codes' with a footnote that says
something like, "Throughout the rest of this document we use the term
'IDN ccTLDs' because that is the term used by the Board, the ccNSO and
the GAC."  The rationale for this change is to recognize that IDN TLDs
are not really ccTLDs until such time as a decision is made to apportion
the IDN TLDs to the ccNSO, thereby being consistent with our argument in
the text that follows.

Under 'Basis for allocating TLDs to the GTLD and ccTLD name spaces', 2nd
paragraph, 3rd sentence: change 'IDN ccTLD' to 'IDN ccTLDs'.

In the same section, 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence: I would put 'Among
most in the GNSO' in brackets until such time that we establish that is
the case and also suggest that we may want to say 'Among most on the
GNSO Council' unless we plan to involve the broader GNSO in making this
determination.

The same sentence says, "the assumption is still that all TLDs, except
for .mil, .edu, and the ISO3166-1 defined ccTLDs remain within the remit
of the GNSO."  Shouldn't we also include .int, .arpa and .gov?

The last sentence of the same paragraph reads, "The conclusions of such
a process should also be permit, and may also require, a redefinition of
the ccNSO and GNSO remits as they are currently defined."  First, I
think the word 'be' should be deleted.  Second, where is the definition
of the GNSO name space currently defined?  I understand that some assume
the definition in this document, but what is that assumption based on?
If it is not defined anywhere other than in people's memory, we may want
to say, "a definition of the ccNSO and GNSO name spaces."

Footnote 2: I believe "It should noted that the recommends . . " should
say, "It should noted that the recommendations . . "

The last paragraph, last sentence of the same paragraph says, "Until
such time as the ICANN community at large has decided on the proper
apportionment of the IDN TLD name space for the ccNSO's remit, any
fast-track method must be developed with balanced participation from the
GNSO, along with the ccNSO and GAC."  As I said to you elsewhere, I
personally think that many will perceive 'balanced participation' to
mean 'equal numbers'.  My understanding is that that is not what is
intended here; if not, I suggest we make that clear.  I do not think
that we necessarily need equal numbers, but I do believe that any
decisions regarding what names are defined to be in GNSO and ccNSO name
spaces requires participation by the whole community and not just the
GNSO or ccNSO, as stated elsewhere in this document.

Under the questions:
  
- The second bullet reads, "It is unclear who the intended registries of
the to be defined IDN ccTLDs are. Are these the traditional ccTLD
registries as defined by RFC 1591? Are these the IDNs associated with
language and cultural communities as envisioned by the IDN WG?  Or are
these new IDN ccTLDs critical national resources that come under some
form of national administration?"  It is not clear to me why we are
asking these questions. They are questions that certainly need to be
answered and they have been raised in the Issues Paper and in the just
released IDNC document.

- In the last bullet change 'insure' to 'ensure'.

Under "The need for adequate GNSO representation on the IDNC WG":

- In the 1st paragraph, 1st sentence, depending on whether
'redefinition' is changed to 'definition' earlier in the document, we
may want to change it here as well; secondly, 'need to resolved' to
'need to be resolved'; third, we use the term 'equal representation'
here whereas we said balanced representation earlier - equal
representation in my opinion seems to quite clearly imply numerical
equality.  I am not sure I agree with this if this group does decide on
name space allocation questions.

- In the 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence, change 'where' to 'were' and 'is'
to 'its'.

Under 'GNSO request':

- In the 1st sentence of the 1st paragraph, change 'insure' to 'ensure'
and change 'general name to space to IDN ccTLDs' to 'general name space
to the ccNSO'.

- In the 1st sentence of the last paragraph, change 'the GNSO council
aslo respectfully request' to 'the GNSO Council also respectfully
requests'.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 2:20 PM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: [council] Draft - Appeal to Board relating to IDNC WG

Hi,

The attached document is the draft produced by the small drafting team
set up for that purpose.

This is not on the agenda for 20 Dec, but rather for 3 Jan.  In the
meantime we can discuss it on the list and can revise it as necessary
before the meeting.

At this point I see a few alternative actions:

- After revisions and discussions by the council it is sent to the Board
- After discssions and a decsion on the 6th, it is sent back to the
drafting team for further work.
- After discussion by the council we decide to do somethig ther en send
this to the Board.

Note: One line in the draft says that this has the agreement of the
council.  that phrase is [bracketed with a note] as it is obviously not
(yet) the case.

I thank those who participated in the drafting team.

a.