RE: [council] Fwd: ccNSO response to GNSO resolution

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

Here a some of my thoughts in response to this letter as well as some
suggested action items that I think should be done in the next few days.
 
First of all, I compliment the ccNSO on a well articulated letter with
what seems to me to be a constructive tone.  Second, I suggest that Avri
officially support the recommendation for a joint ccNSO/GNSO meeting in
New Delhi, an idea that I believe she has already indicated support for.
Third, I recommend that we use the time we have between now and New
Delhi to carefully prepare for the proposed joint ccNSO/GNSO meeting in
New Delhi.  Regarding the latter:

*       
        I believe that completion of the GNSO response to the ccNSO/GAC
Issues Paper on IDN ccTLDs is a key step.  Ideally it would have been
good to accomplish that before the end of the ccNSO public comment
period on their IDN ccTLD PDP (25 January).  Because that is not
feasible before the New Delhi meetings, I suggest that, before 25
January,  Avri send a letter to the ccNSO and to their comment site
informing them that our response (as requested by the Board) will not be
completed until New Delhi and we respectfully request that our input be
considered in the PDP. [Note that we would need to act on this before
the end of this current week so we will have to decide whether or not to
do this via our list.]
*       
        I do not think that it will be effective to engage in discussion
with the ccNSO regarding the issues we are concerned about prior to the
joint meeting in New Delhi.  In my opinion, the chances are too high
that there will be misunderstanding and even miscommunication until both
Councils are face to face and that can cause more harm to the success of
the joint meeting than good.
*       
        As a means of getting our preparation for the joint meeting
started, I identify the following points from the ccNSO letter to the
Board for which I believe we need to prepare: 1) The ccNSO clearly
believes that the issues we raised will take much longer than 120 days;
2) they appear to assume that it is possible to introduce fast tract IDN
ccTLDs before any resolution of the issues we raised; 3) they state that
as far as the issues relate to IDN ccTLDs, they should be the
responsibility of the ccNSO; 4) they also believe that they must be
dealt with in a PDP.  I provide my preliminary thinking about each of
these below.

1) The ccNSO clearly believes that the issues we raised will take much
longer than 120 days.

*       
        The original intent of the 120 day target was to attempt to
avoid any further delays in the implementation of IDN TLDs (gTLDs or cc
fast track IDN TLDs).
*       
        I believe that the goal of avoiding further delays remains valid
and if the 120 day target is unrealistic, then it is important to begin
work on the issues we raised as soon as possible with the goal of at
least agreeing to some interim approach until full resolution of the
issues can be completed.

2) They appear to assume that it is possible to introduce fast tract IDN
ccTLDs before any resolution of the issues we raised.

*       
        I believe that this may be a fundamental difference of opinion
between the GNSO and ccNSO but not one that necessarily needs to be a
show stopper.  I think it is less important for the two SO's to come to
agreement on the assumption than it is to jointly develop an interim
approach as suggested in the previous item.
*       
        I don't think we should spend a lot of time trying to convince
them that a final policy for allocating new TLDs into GNSO and ccNSO
name space has to happen before any IDN TLDs are introduced, but instead
we should work together to come up with a way that our concerns can be
addressed in the short term. I Therefore, I recommend that we focus our
attention on coming up with some ways forward on this that satisfy our
needs with regard to TLD allocation and still allow the ccNSO to deal
with the bigger policy issues over a longer period of time.

3) They state that as far as the issues relate to IDN ccTLDs, they
should be the responsibility of the ccNSO.

*       
        This is a point where I believe there is gap in understanding
between the GNSO and ccNSO or at least there does not seem to be an
recognition of a key point we tried to make: allocation of new TLDs into
the DNS is an issue that affects both SO's and therefore must be worked
by both SO's.
*       
        This is an area that I think deserves caution because I think it
would be counterproductive for us to give the impression that the GNSO
wants to determine policy for the ccNSO so we should make it clear from
the outset that that is not our intent.
*       
        This is a place where an example might be helpful.  Consider the
case of .berlin.  Should that be a GNSO or a ccNSO.  It appears to me at
a minimum that guidelines need to be in place before .berlin is
introduce that determine what SO has policy responsibility.  And any
such guidelines need to be developed by both SO's because both SO's are
impacted.

 
4) They believe that the issues the GNSO raised must be dealt with in a
PDP.

*       
        If this is the case, which PDP process should be used?  the GNSO
PDP or the ccNSO PDP?  It may not matter too much provided that the PDP
used allows for full participation by the other SO with regard to the
TLD allocation issue.
*       
        At present, there is not a joint PDP process in the ICANN
Bylaws; maybe this is an idea for further development.
*       
        The idea of a less formal joint working group was made to
facilitate a timely response to the issues.  In my opinion, waiting two
years for a ccNSO PDP process doesn't work, at least not for the
development of an interim approach to the broader TLD allocation issues.
This seems to be a key area where the two SO's need to focus attention.
*       
        In the meantime, I am confident that we can work together with
the ccNSO.  From what I have observed so far, the ccNSO is heading in a
direction that is not far off from what we could support.  In the draft
issues report that the IDNC is considering, one idea under consideration
for IDN ccTLD string selection is this: "the string must be a meaningful
representation of the name of the Territory or an abbreviation of the
name of the Territory in the relevant script".  Please note that this is
not a final position.  But if it is adopted it provides some defined
limitations in terms of IDN ccTLDs and could possibly even be used in
developing interim guidelines for allocation of TLDs into the two policy
name spaces.o

Finally, I have concerns about the following statement in the next to
last paragraph of the ccNSO letter to the Board: "During the process the
delegation of new TLDs would need to be suspended to ensure that TLDs
are not created in circumstances that would be a breach of the policy
being developed."  I think we need to get clarification of this in the
proposed joint meeting.  Considering that the ccNSO PDP is estimated to
take at least two years, this could easily be a way of delaying IDN
gTLDs, depending on what it means.  I am not suggesting that it was
intended that way but I definitely think we need to get clarity in that
regard.
 
In conclusion, I am proposing the following action times, the first two
of which need to happen in the next four days (NLT 25 Jan.):

1.      
        Avri send a letter to Chris Dispain officially supporting the
recommendation for a joint ccNSO/GNSO meeting in New Delhi.
2.      
        Avri send a letter to the ccNSO and to their comment site
informing them that our response to the ccNSO/GAC Issues Paper on IDN
ccTLDs (as requested by the Board) will not be completed until New Delhi
and we respectfully request that our input be considered in the PDP.
3.      
        We initiate a planning process for the joint meeting in New
Delhi ASAP.

To facilitate moving forward on the above so that we can meet the time
constraints, please comment on the Council list right away.
 
Chuck

________________________________

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 6:30 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: [council] Fwd: ccNSO response to GNSO resolution
Importance: High


Forwarded with permission 

a.


Begin forwarded message:


        From: "Chris Disspain" 
        Date: 21 January 2008 12:11:37 GMT+01:00
        
        
        Subject: ccNSO response to GNSO resolution

        
        Peter and Paul,
        
        Attached is the ccNSO response to the GNSO resolution of 3
January 2008. Please forward this letter to the ICANN Board list at your
earliest convenience.
        
        Pursuant to the letter I shall be formally writing to Avri Doria
tomorrow to invite the GNSO to a joint meeting in New Delhi.
        
        Kind Regards,
        
        Chris Disspain
        CEO - auDA
        Australia's Domain Name Administrator
        ceo@xxxxxxxxxxx
        www.auda.org.au
        
        Important Notice - This email may contain information which is
confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the
use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient,
you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have
received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this
message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing
this email.