RE: AW: [registrars] Further summary of the GNSO Council Meeting 17 Jan 2008

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tom,

My concern is the possible realm of answers to the questions raised in
the joint GAC/ccNSO issues paper. 

The announcement is here:
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19dec07.htm

The issues paper is here: 
http://www.icann.org/topics/idn/ccnso-gac-issues-report-on-idn-09jul07.pdf

If you read those questions carefully, and consider the possible
answers, it's clear that we very likely will have dozens or hundreds of
TLDs in addition to the exisiting ccTLDs that may operate outside of the
same rules and requirements as gTLDs. The fast track process concerns me
because it is an attempt to move forward with a partical implementation
without having those important questions answered, and could in and of
itself create a precendent used during any subsequent ccNSO PDP.

And finally, I question whether this even should be primarily a ccNSO
issue any more than it should be primarily a GNSO issue. I don't think
either SO should proceed without the complete and equal involvement of
the other given what's at stake and who the ultimate stakeholders are.

As we both know, a large number of ccTLDs are basically promoted as
quasi-gTLDs - .tv, .ws, .cc, .fm, .am, and so on. I think the
implications of how IDN TLDs are fast tracked and/or otherwise assigned
should be of concern to gTLD operators and gTLD Accredited Registrars.



Tim Ruiz
Vice President
Corp. Development & Policy
The Go Daddy Group, Inc.
Direct: 319-329-9804
Fax: 480-247-4516
tim@xxxxxxxxxxx

How am I doing? Please contact my direct supervisor at
president@xxxxxxxxxxx with any feedback.

This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only
by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential
information. If you have received this email in error, please
immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and
any copy of this message and its attachments.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: AW: [registrars] Further summary of the GNSO Council Meeting
17 Jan 2008
From: "Thomas Keller" <tom@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, January 21, 2008 9:43 am
To: "'Tim Ruiz'" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'St
Tim,

I'm not sure what you mean by broader policy. What exactly is your
concern?

Best,

tom

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Tim Ruiz
Gesendet: Montag, 21. Januar 2008 16:27
An: Stéphane Van Gelder
Cc: 'Registrars Constituency'
Betreff: RE: [registrars] Further summary of the GNSO Council Meeting 17
Jan
2008


Stephane,

An accented .FR is one thing, but it seems that in some cases the fast
tracked IDN could go beyond that, as well as those comptemplated by
whatever
broader policy might ultimately come out of the ccNSO PDP.

Tim


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [registrars] Further summary of the GNSO Council Meeting
17 Jan 2008
From: Stiphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, January 20, 2008 12:07 pm
To: "'Tim Ruiz'" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Registrars Constituency'"
<registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

>I am concerned because this further broadens the ccTLD universe beyond
>the
current two character codes >specified in ISO 3166, and may set a
precedent
used by the ccNSO PDP. A major question is what kind of >agreement with
ICANN will these fall under? If they fall under the existing loose ccTLD
framework >agreements then these new IDN name
>spacess:

>1. Will not required to comply with consensus policies as Accredited
Registrars and gTLD Registries are.
>2. Will not be required to use *only* Accredited Registrars, or to even
>use
them at all.
>3. Will have no ownership requirement limitations so they can own
registrars, registrars can own them, can >sell direct, etc.
>4. Will have no requirement to fund ICANN through transactional fees or
>any
other method.

Hello Tim,

I was surprised to read your comments highlighted above.
I hope I'm not misunderstanding what you're saying, but to me it seems
perfectly normal to have ccTLDs that are operating outside the system of
registrars accredited by ICANN for gTLDs.
If a ccTLD registry gets assigned an IDN ccTLD, then it should be
handled by
its own accredited registrars. For example, if AFNIC gets assigned the
accented version of .FR, AFNIC accredited registrars would certainly not
expect to have to go through an ICANN registration process to sell it.
In actual fact, as an AFNIC board member, I think I can say with a
certain
amount of certainty that AFNIC would probably object to having ICANN
decide
whether it should manager an accented .FR or not.


Stiphane Van Gelder
Directeur Giniral / General manager
INDOM - Noms de domaine / Domain names
124-126, rue de Provence
75008 Paris. France
0820 77 7000
(Prix d'un appel local)
De l'itranger (calling from outside France): + 33 1 76 70 05 67
www.indom.com www.stephanevangelder.com



-----Message d'origine-----
De : owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] De la part de Tim Ruiz
Envoyi : vendredi 18 janvier 2008 14:41
@ : Registrars Constituency
Objet : [registrars] Further summary of the GNSO Council Meeting 17 Jan
2008


As Tom forwarded, Avri was confirmed for another term as Chair of the
GNSO.

A group of Councilors will be formulating the next steps for the Tasting
PDP, due by the Meeting in New Delhi for Council consideration.

A group of Councilors and possibly one or two others will be considering
the reports of the Transfers WG and recommending a way forward on the
issues raised and prioritized in those reports.

Registrar Councilors will be involved in both groups.

Another issue that I believe should be of concern to the RC and watched
closely is the Fast Track process for .IDNs being developed by IDNC WG
of the ccNSO:
http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/idncwg.htm

This process will be used to assign one .IDN to ccTLD managers before
completion of the ccPDP on IDN ccTLDs. The .IDN will be a localized
version of their ccTLD.

I am concerned because this further broadens the ccTLD universe beyond
the current two character codes specified in ISO 3166, and may set a
precedent used by the ccNSO PDP. A major question is what kind of
agreement with ICANN will these fall under? If they fall under the
existing loose ccTLD framework agreements then these new IDN name
spacess:

1. Will not required to comply with consensus policies as Accredited
Registrars and gTLD Registries are.
2. Will not be required to use *only* Accredited Registrars, or to even
use them at all.
3. Will have no ownership requirement limitations so they can own
registrars, registrars can own them, can sell direct, etc.
4. Will have no requirement to fund ICANN through transactional fees or
any other method.

This expansion of the ccTLD namespace is being done completely within
the ccNSO WG and PDP with only comment opportunities by the rest of the
stakeholders actually affected by the outcome, and in particular the
Registrars and Registries who should be concerned about the unbalancing
of the competitive environment this expansion could create if these new
namespaces are not under the same rules and restrictions as gTLDs are
and new gTLDs and IDN gTLDs will be.

The ccNSO WG Fast Track initial report will be posted for comment in the
next few weeks. I encourage anyone concerned as I am to be sure and look
at this issue closely and comment. It may also be worthwhile for the RC
as a whole to also comment.

The Issue Report for ccNSO PDP itself on this topic can be commented on
until 25 Jan 2008:
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19dec07.htm


Tim