RE: [council] Topic List from IDNC (Fast Track)
- To: "Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] Topic List from IDNC (Fast Track)
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:30:24 -0500
- In-reply-to: <028b01c8490b$af33e1e0$0d9ba5a0$@org>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: Acg+YmCx1tp1gx17T6mPV6D59gTkSQAObyXwAEq6bgAABLo+IACm+buQAaH8dFAAGBX/IA==
- Thread-topic: [council] Topic List from IDNC (Fast Track)
Thanks Edmon. Your comments look good to me.
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Edmon Chung
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 11:40 PM
To: 'Council GNSO'
Subject: RE: [council] Topic List from IDNC (Fast Track)
Regarding the topic list, see below my intended response to the IDNC list.
Your feedback would be helpful.
Before answering the questions there are a few basic principles I think, as my
personal opinion, are important:
1. the fast track approach should be treated as experimental in nature (does
not mean that delegation is not treated as long-term commitment, i.e. that
delegation should not be revoked lightly)
2. because of its experimental nature, certain requirements (that do not
currently apply to ccTLDs) would be appropriate
3. the point that no precedence should be set for the larger discussion is
important to be stressed. Also, the "larger discussion", that is, the
appropriation of IDN TLDs representing territories designated in the ISO3166-1
list into the ccNSOs remit, must involve an ICANN community-wide process and
balanced participation from all stakeholders.
4. consistent with point 2., some form of agreement / understanding with ICANN
should be required for the Fast Track to ensure that point 3 is observed (i.e.
that it does not set a precedence or create any legacy issue). Also it should
serve to ensure the adherence to the IDN guidelines and relevant technical
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> 2. Mechanism for the selection of an IDN ccTLD string in the fast
> track o What are the requirements regarding the status of the
> script/language in the territory to be used in the IDN ccTLD string?
i. Should have published (or adopted) an IDN language table at IANA ii. Such
publishing (or adoption) should have gone through due process involving local
community and experts iii. Should have some experience with 2LD IDN
registrations and management iv. Must comply with IDN guidelines
> o Is there a limit to the number of scripts per territory to be used as an
> IDN ccTLD
> under the fast track approach? Should it be limited to one (1) per territory
> or some
> other number?
Should not be based on a arbitrary number. Should be based on practical
circumstances in ways consistent with the fast track approach (more
specifically not to impede the implementation).
> o Who should be able to propose a string for the territory?
The proposed string should be based on authoritative sources for a phrase that
is representative of describing the territory. The entity that will be
operating or overseeing the operations of the TLD should present the case for
the delegation of the IDN TLD.
> o Who is required to endorse a string once proposed?
"Endorsement" may not be the appropriate characterization. The "proposed"
string should already exist and based firmly on authoritative sources. As
such, no "endorsement" should be required. Confirmation may be useful and
that should include advice from the GAC and response from the community,
including through an "objection" process (see below for thoughts on "objection
> o What are the criteria for such a string to be acceptable under the fast
> track (for
> example: meaningful representation in a selected script of the name of the
> or recognized abbreviation as listed on ISO 3166 -1)
- meaningfully represents the territory designated by the ISO3166-1 list
- must comply with IDN guidelines
- should not be confusingly similar to existing TLDs (except for the
- does not have a secondary meaning that may be generic in nature and not
representing the corresponding territory
> o Will a proposed string be
> ¡¥evaluated¡¦ against criteria? If so, who will the ¡¥evaluator¡¦ be and who
> will appoint
"Evaluation" may not be the best characterization. Nevertheless, proposals
should be vetted to ensure that adequate supporting documentary evidence is
accompanied to suggest that the proposed string is reflective and based on
> o Assuming a string and script are selected in accordance with proposed
> should there be an objection procedure? If so, who should be eligible to
> On what grounds? What is the impact of an objection (for example
> under fast track)?
Yes, there should be a process for indicating concern or "objection". The
reason to avoid "objection" is that there may be cases where a formal
"objection" would be prohibitively difficult for certain entities, such as a
government. The process should balance between providing a reasonable avenue
for raising concerns and to avoid abusive objections. Concerns raised should
also not immediately disqualify a proposal.
> 3. Mechanism to designate an IDN ccTLD manager.
> o Should any criteria specific to IDNs be taken into consideration for the
> designation of an IDN ccTLD manager?
Yes. The Registry Operator must commit to abiding by the IDN Guidelines and
> o Are there any specific requirements regarding the technical and
> readiness of the eligible IDN ccTLD manager?
The entity operating or overseeing the operation of the IDN TLD should have
some experience with IDN registrations. (understand this is specific for the
> o Should there be a proven track record for running a TLD operationally?
Yes. Again, note this is for fast-track.
> o Should the eligible entity have experience (operationally or
> experimentally) with
> running IDN in the relevant script at the second and /or higher levels?
> o Should adherence to the IDNA protocol and related requirements be ensured?
> How should this be ensured?
Yes. In my opinion, the Fast Track process should be treated like an
experimental process. The entity operating the TLD should have an agreement
or some executed understanding with ICANN whereby the delegation would be
revoked should there be threats to the technical stability and security of the
Internet. Once the larger question of how the delegation and appropriation of
IDN TLDs representing territories designated by the ISO3166-1 list is to be
managed is answered by the yet to be formed ICANN community-wide exercise is
completed, such agreement or understanding could be superseded.
> o Is the registration policy of the IDN ccTLD relevant in relation to the
> protocols and related requirements? If so how is adherence to such required
Yes. They should be adherent to the IDN Guidelines and should have published
(or adopted) an IDN language table at IANA.