<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Fwd: ccNSO response to GNSO resolution
Hi,
I am not sure that it applies to IDN gTDS only. As some of the
questions ask in the ccNSO/GAC questions list related t LDH ASCII
TLDs, e.g.
a) Should all IDN ccTLD strings be of a fixed length,
for example by retaining the two-character limitation
that applies to ASCII ccTLD labels, or can they be of
variable length?
If a variable string length is introduced for IDN ccTLDs,
should it also be introduced for ASCII ccTLDs?
As the last sentence indicates, there is interest in variable length
LDH ASCII ccTLDs, I believe the meaning of the statement is that if
the issue of apportionment is opened and the group the GNSO council
is approved, then everything, include the LDG restriction to 2 letter
codes, should be on the table. In that case, I believe they are
arguing that no new gTLDs of any sort should go forward until all
issues were resolved. I think the reference to TLD as opposed to IDN
TLD is deliberate and not accidental: the rest f the note carefully
discusses IDN TLDs. Only in this section is the reference to IDN
dropped and the scope of the issue escalated.
That, at least is my understanding of their position.
a.
On 22 Jan 2008, at 02:49, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
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.):
•
Avri send a letter to Chris Dispain officially supporting the
recommendation for a joint ccNSO/GNSO meeting in New Delhi.
•
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.
•
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|