RE: [council] Topics for Joint Meetings in Brussels

["Terry L Davis, P.E." <tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Andrei

 

Excellent summary.

 

At the technical level I think that the basic use of puny-code instead of
Unicode is going to create some really big technical issues as we move
toward fuller deployment.

 

Take care

Terry

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Andrei Kolesnikov
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 12:33 PM
To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Topics for Joint Meetings in Brussels

 

Dear colleagues, 

 

Regarding gNSO/ccNSO meeting and sync TLDs as a topic.  I propose a
different theme, because I have a feeling, that Sync TLD theme today has a
very limited implication, refer to Board resolution:

Whereas, the methodology to be taken by the IDN ccTLD manager to handle
these particular instances of parallel IDN ccTLDs is, in the short-term, the
only option available, but there are serious limits to where such an
approach is viable in practice, so that it cannot be viewed as a general
solution, and that consequently, long-term development work should be
pursued;

Whereas, significant analysis and possibly development work should continue
on both policy-based and technical elements of a solution for the
introduction on a more general basis of strings containing variants as TLD;

My recommendation to gNSO and ccNSO councilors is to focus on interesting
and “yet unknown” issues of “IDNs in non-IDN world”.  Please find below
a short list of issues to cover:

 


IDNs in NON-IDN world

The issues and problems for the end users, registrars and registries are
very similar: this world is not ready for IDNs


Support of browsers

Overview of browsers behavior. DNS traffic cash-in: why local script goes to
.COM? Why Google is my default for the IDN script / browser localization?
How IDN development changes the food chain of typos, not-founds? 


Support of email

Email functionality adds up to IDN popularity. Update on IETF.


IDN code: “IDN-ization”, where to stop?

IDN code гттп://президент.рф/постановления/пр
иказ1.гтяр


Community activities to get the thing done right

what can be done jointly ccNSO / gNSO to speed up IDN support on application
level? What should we demand?

 

 

Best regards,

 

--andrei

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 12:36 AM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] Topics for Joint Meetings in Brussels
Importance: High

 

<<Survey for Board meeting with GNSO in Brussels.docx>> 

Assuming  I didn’t miss anyone’s preferences, here is a summary of support
for discussion topics in our joint meetings in Brussels:

GAC/GNSO meeting

1.      DAG 4, including morality and public order

o       Support: Bill, Jaime, Wolf, Mary

o       Oppose: 

2.      AoC, including A&T RT and next reviews

o       Support: Bill, Jaime, Wolf, Mary

o       Oppose: 

3.      RAA

o       Support: Chuck, Mary?

o       Oppose: 

4.      IDN ccPDP

o       Support: 

o       Oppose: Chuck, 

If there are no objections by Monday, I plan to suggest to Janis that we
discuss topics 1 & 2 with the GAC.  And would like to request a volunteer
(or volunteers) to draft a brief (less than 5 minutes) intro to each topic
including any questions we might have for the GAC.

Board/Staff/GNSO dinner meeting

1.      There are rumblings that there are some on the Board who think this
meeting has outlived its usefulness; in light of that, it might be useful to
discuss the value or lack of value from both the GNSO and Board/Staff
perspective.

o       Support: Chuck, Stéphane

o       Oppose:  

2.      What do Board members understand about the AoC commitment to promote
competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace,
with a particular focus on GNSO work

o       Support: Rosemary, Wolf

o       Oppose:  

3.      ICANN and Internet governance directions

o       Support: Terry, Bill, Jaime, Rafik, Mary

o       Oppose:  Wolf

4.      DAG 4, including morality and public order

o       Support: Wolf, Mary

Note that I sent the attached survey to Bruce Tonkin for the purpose of
getting individual Board responses and asking Bruce what the best way of
doing that would be.

ccNSO/GNSO meeting

1.      DNS-CERT

o       Support: Chuck, Bill, Mary

o       Oppose: 

2.      Synchronized TLDs

o       Support: Andrei

o       Oppose: 

If there are no objections by Monday, I will send these topics to Chris.
Andrei has volunteered to prepare a brief intro to the Synchronized TLDs
topic.  We need a volunteer for the DNS-CERT to do the same.