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

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

I also support your proposal, Chuck, and agree with both you and Robin
w/r/t IDN ccTLD string criteria.  I did read the "delegation suspension"
bullet to apply to IDN gTLDs.
 
K  


________________________________

        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
        Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 7:41 PM
        To: Chuck Gomes; Council GNSO
        Subject: Re: [council] Fwd: ccNSO response to GNSO resolution
        
        
        Thanks for giving this so much thought, Chuck.   I support your
proposal for moving forward.  And I agree that if the IDN ccTLD string
selection criteria ends up being the one quoted below, we shouldn't have
too much disagreement.

        Robin


        On Jan 21, 2008, at 8:35 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:


                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.
                        
                        


        



        IP JUSTICE
        Robin Gross, Executive Director
        1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
        p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
        w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx