RE: [council] Topics for Joint Meetings in Brussels

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

Andrei

 

“However, there is a world outside. My idea was to run a short update about
this outside world to demonstrate that this world is still ascii based and
there is a long way to”

 

Amen, amen, amen!

 

Punycode was such a bad idea technically that I cannot believe they
standardized on it!

 

Look forward to talking more with you on this subject in Brussels.

 

Take care

Terry

 

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Andrei Kolesnikov
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 4:47 AM
To: 'Edmon Chung'; 'Gomes, Chuck'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Topics for Joint Meetings in Brussels

 

I know, Edmon. I plan to attend JIG meeting of course ?C I live in IDN
country and won’t miss a thing J

The JIG issues  partly were covered in Nairobi at gNSO/ccNSO dinner. The
loudest news since Nairobi was straight-forward  resolution of the Board
regarding sync TLDs for China and Taiwan. 

Also it will be interesting to hear reps ccNSO members from China and Taiwan
about how they plan to implement the sync restrictions. And I will do a
short update ?C 5 minutes max, the issue kind of hanged after April 22-nd
resolution of the Board.

Will add up  potential dname, bname usage / IETF works and admin
enforcements. This all about sync TLDs.  

 

However, there is a world outside. My idea was to run a short update about
this outside world to demonstrate that this world is still ascii based and
there is a long way to go.

 

If it’s too late to change subjects ?C fine, I’ll do sync TLDs and
attracted council members can join the IDN software developers consortium on
June 19th

 

--andrei

 

From: Edmon Chung [mailto:edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 12:13 PM
To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Andrei Kolesnikov'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Topics for Joint Meetings in Brussels

 

Andrei,

I believe you are with us at the JIG as well.  This has been identified as
one of the issues of common interest.  Would be good to further these
discussions there as well.

We will have a meeting in Brussels as well.  The meeting is set for Tuesday
morning 8am (http://brussels38.icann.org/full-schedule)

Edmon

 

 

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, June 9, 2010 4:52 AM
To: Andrei Kolesnikov; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Topics for Joint Meetings in Brussels

 

Unfortunately, I sent Chris the two proposed topics yesterday and he was
planning on discussing them with the ccNSO today so it may be too late to
change topics now.  Assuming it is not too late, we would need to keep the
topics to a minimum because we only have 90 minutes and part of that will be
taken up by lunch.  In my opinion, topics should be of general interest to
most people in attendance and not too technical.  Topics that benefit from
joint ccNSO/GNSO discussion are ideal.

 

Chuck

 

From: Andrei Kolesnikov [mailto:andrei@xxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 3:33 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.

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2924 - Release Date: 06/08/10
14:35:00