RE: [registrars] Further summary of the GNSO Council Meeting 17 Jan 2008
Hi Tom, I think you misunderstood me. What I call Icann-sanctioned gTLDs are extensions like .ASIA, which IMO are borderline gTLD/ccTLD. That is why I talked about "pseudo IDN ccTLDs" in my previous message. What I mean is that, say Icann decides that it should green-light an accented .FR IDN domain as part of its generic domains program, then what we've got effectively is a gTLD that's disguised as an IDN ccTLD. Bear in mind that many people around the world wonder why .ASIA or .CAT are Icann-sanctionned gTLDs rather than being products of their respective geographic communities like .EU for example... Cheers, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / 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'étranger (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 Thomas Keller Envoyé : mardi 22 janvier 2008 13:55 À : 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; 'Tim Ruiz' Cc : 'Registrars Constituency' Objet : AW: [registrars] Further summary of the GNSO Council Meeting 17 Jan 2008 Hi, just for clarification, there is no such thing as ccTLDs that are actually ICANN-sanctioned gTLDS. From an ICANN viewpoint ccTLDs are TLDs that derive from the ISO 3166 list and which are delegated to independent community representatives of that respective country or representatives of the respective government. As these representatives are free to determine their policies there are also free to choose there registry provider and their distribution chanel as just happend with .me. The broader question is how the introduction of IDNs will change the the views on what will be a considered a ccTLD and therefore managed by the CCNSO or a gTLD. Another question would be how we as registrars can take part in CCNSO decision processes. Best, tom -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder Gesendet: Montag, 21. Januar 2008 17:55 An: 'Tim Ruiz' Cc: 'Registrars Constituency' Betreff: RE: [registrars] Further summary of the GNSO Council Meeting 17 Jan 2008 Tim, If we're moving towards pseudo IDN ccTLDs that are actually ICANN-sanctionned gTLDs, then I share your concerns. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / 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'étranger (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 Envoyé : lundi 21 janvier 2008 16:27 À : Stéphane Van Gelder Cc : 'Registrars Constituency' Objet : 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 Attachment:
smime.p7s
|