Re: [registrars] Proposed terms of reference for IDN-gTLDs policy development

["Marcus Faure" <faure@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Bruce,

do we have feedback regarding the DNAME testbed?
In general I like the idea of installing DNAMEs for all ccTLDs where the
language of the TLD suffix is widely accepted in the respective
country. This is of course not applicable for gTLDs

Yours,
Marcus
CORE Council of Registrars



> Hello All,
> 
> The GNSO Council is meeting on Thursday 3 August.  It will be
> considering the terms of reference below to initiate a policy
> development process on IDNs.   If you have any feedback, please let me
> know.
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> Registrars Rep on GNSO Council
> 
> 
> 
> Proposed Terms of Reference for Policy Development Relating to IDN at
> the Top-Level of the Domain Name System
> 
> The following terms of reference for further work are focused on GNSO
> activities and therefore address gTLD considerations. Subsequent to
> working group assessment of the Preliminary Issues Report, they were
> adopted by the GNSO Council on xx August 2006.
> 
> 
> 1. Introduction of Generic Top-Level Domains with IDN Labels (IDN-gTLDs)
> 
> 	a. Given the urgency of current interest in fully localized
> domain names, and the limited range of potential outcomes of the
> impending technical tests of devices for entering top-level IDN labels
> into the root zone, the policy for the inclusion of IDN-gTLDs can begin
> to be assessed.
> 
> 	b. Assuming that top-level IDN labels will be added to the root
> zone, awaiting the outcome of the requisite initial trials, address the
> following additional terms of reference.
> 
> 
> 2. Selection Criteria for Top-Level Domains with IDN Labels
> 
> 	a. Taking into account the background, considerations and
> findings regarding selection criteria in the New gTLD PDP [PDP-Dec05],
> develop modified or additional criteria for the inclusion of IDN labels
> in subsequent action toward ICANN's goals of expanding the use and
> usability of the Internet.
> 
> 
> 3. Allocation Methods for Top-Level Domains with IDN Labels
> 
> 	a. Taking into account the background, considerations and
> findings regarding allocation methods in the New gTLD PDP [PDP-Dec05],
> develop modified or additional allocation methods that may be applied to
> gTLDs with IDN labels.
> 
> 
> 4. Policy to Guide Contractual Conditions for Top-Level Domains with IDN
> Labels
> 
> 	a. Taking into account the background, considerations and
> findings regarding contractual conditions in the New gTLD PDP
> [PDP-Dec05], develop policies to guide the specific contractual criteria
> needed for gTLDs with IDN labels, to be made publicly available prior to
> any application rounds.
> 
> 
> 5. Additional Policy Considerations Regarding Top-Level Domains with IDN
> Labels
> 
> 	a. Determining that a proposed new IDN label is adequately
> differentiated from a pre-existing label requires comparison in graphic,
> phonetic, and semantic terms.  Two levels of differentiation are
> necessary, of which the one pertains to situations where the two labels
> are being considered for delegation to the same operator, and the other
> where the labels are to be delegated to independent registries.  The
> former case can be further subdivided into two situations.  In the one,
> the intention is for the same set of sub-domain names to appear under
> multiple TLD labels, and in the other independent name trees are to be
> established.
> 
> 	b. With specific regard to the preceding point, determine
> whether the script used for an IDN-gTLD label can, or should, be
> exclusively propagated on all lower levels in the sub-domain tree
> (allowing for the general exceptions attaching to that script as
> referenced in the ICANN IDN Guidelines).  If such a procedure is viable,
> intention to implement it may serve as a differentiation criterion or
> otherwise be invoked in the consideration of a request for a new label.
> 
> 	c. Be particularly mindful of detail which, although initially
> considered in the IDN context, may otherwise be relevant to the New gTLD
> PDP. The association of two separate labels with the same TLD is an
> example of this, given that the linguistic justification for such action
> can as easily be derived from two languages that can be adequately
> represented using ASCII characters as it can from a situation where one
> or both labels requires IDN representation.
> 
> 	d. The implementation of policies based on an aliasing mechanism
> (as implicit in Section 5a above) may require the development of new
> technical resources if the tests of the currently available alternatives
> (as referenced in Section 1a above) determine that none are viable. In
> general, care should be taken to recognize distinctions between
> technical and policy concerns, as well as cultural and political
> considerations. Addressing their manifold interdependencies should be
> approached as collaborative action with other organizations as
> appropriate to any given case.