Below (and attached in Word with hyperlinks) is an expanded <i>Issue Update</i>
on the Fast Track process for the introduction of IDN ccTLDs. It has
been prepared by ICANN Staff to support community discussions at the
Paris ICANN meeting and beyond, and is being distributed to all
Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, and posted on ICANN's
website. <br>
<br>
In addition to briefly summarizing recommendations in the IDNC Working
Group's Draft Final Report and related issues under discussion, the <i>Issue Update </i>contains
links to more IDN information, and a list of IDN-related activities scheduled in
Paris. <br><br>We hope you find it useful and encourage you to share it.<br>
<br>
Regards, <br>
<br>
Denise Michel<br>
ICANN VP, Policy <br>
<a href="mailto:policy-staff@icann.org">policy-staff@icann.org</a><br>
<br>
--------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
ICANN ISSUE UPDATE <br>
<br>
FAST TRACK PROCESS FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF IDN CCTLDS <br>
<br>
June 2008<br>
<br>
<i>
Prepared by ICANN Staff to support community discussions.</i><br>
<br>
ICANN's IDNC Working Group (IDNC WG) is finalizing its report on
feasible methods that would enable the timely and efficient ("fast
track") introduction of a limited number of non-contentious IDN ccTLDs,
while a global, long-term IDN ccTLD policy is being developed by the
ccNSO. On 13 June, 2008, the IDNC WG issued a Draft Final Report
providing advice on issues that need to be considered in developing (1)
a mechanism for the selection of the IDN ccTLD string, and (2) a
mechanism to designate an IDN ccTLD manager. During the ICANN Paris
meeting, the Report is expected to be finalised by the IDNC WG,
discussed by several Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees,
and will be the focus of a public workshop. The Report also has been
posted to encourage additional discussion at
<a href="http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-13jun08-en.htm">http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-13jun08-en.htm</a>. <br>
<br>
Background <br>
<br>
As a result of the ICANN Board resolution approved at the Los Angels
meeting, the IDNC WG was established according to its charter. The
IDNC WG is comprised of Members of the GAC and the ccNSO (including
their Chairs), two members each from the GNSO and the ALAC (and
additional observers from the GNSO), one member from the SSAC, one
representative of technical community, and two ICANN Staff members.
Chairs of the IDNC WG are Mrs. Young Eum Lee, member of the ccNSO
Council, and Ms. Manal Ismail, GAC Representative from Egypt. <br>
<br>
The purpose of the Fast Track process is to introduce a limited number
of non-contentious IDN ccTLDs, associated with the ISO 3166-1
two-letter codes in a short time frame to meet near term demand. The
scope of the IDNC WG was limited to developing feasible methods (for
the introduction of a limited number of IDN ccTLDs) that do not
pre-empt the outcomes of the ccNSO's IDN policy development process. <br>
<br>
In developing feasible methods, the IDNC WG was required to take into
account and be guided by: the overarching requirements of stability and
security; IDNA protocols and IDN guidelines; input of the technical
community with respect to implementation of IDNs; and current practices
for the delegation of ccTLDs.<br>
<br>
The working group published two previous draft reports for comment from
the global community: a draft Initial Report to canvass the community
on the topics that needed to be covered; and a draft Interim Report to
canvass the community on a methodology. <br>
<br>
As indicated in the IDNC WG Initial and Interim Reports, the Fast Track
requires two specific mechanisms: 1) A mechanism for the selection of
the IDN ccTLD string; and 2) A mechanism to designate an IDN ccTLD
manager.<br>
<br>
Based on the input received, the working group developed a number of
general guiding principles that, in conjunction with the overarching
requirements, guide conditions for the methodology. The methodology
describes (at a high level) the activities, roles, and responsibilities
of the actors involved in the processes. <br>
<br>
The IDNC WG anticipates that this will need to be further detailed by
ICANN Staff as a matter of implementation. Their Report notes that, in
order to implement the recommended methodology, some of the current
procedures and practices (for instance the practices relating to the
maintenance of the repository and requirements for an IDN table), may
need to be changed. The working group indicates, however, that
identifying these procedures, or suggesting changes, is considered a
matter of implementation.<br>
<br>
Draft Final Report Content<br>
<br>
The IDNC WG and other groups in the ICANN community are continuing
their discussions of the Report during the ICANN meeting in Paris.
Therefore, the recommendations set forth in the Draft Final Report are
subject to change. <br>
<br>
Guiding principles developed by the IDNC WG, based on input received during the various comment periods, are summarized below:<br>
<br>
A. Ongoing Process – The Fast Track should be an ongoing process to
enable a selected IDN ccTLD manager to enter when ready, but should end
when a global IDN ccTLD policy has been adopted by the ICANN Board. <br>
<br>
B. Non pre-emption of overall policy – The Fast Track should not
pre-empt final IDN ccTLD policy, so it must be a simple, clear and
limited solution. <br>
<br>
C. Purpose of Fast Track is to meet pressing demand – The Fast Track
should only be available where there is a pressing demand in the
territory (evidenced by readiness to meet the requirements). <br>
<br>
D. Fast Track only for non-Latin scripts – To avoid pre-empting the
ccNSO's PDP, which will consider the possibility of IDN ccTLDs in Latin
script, non-Latin script must be used in the Fast Track. <br>
<br>
E. The proposed string and delegation request should be non-contentious
within the territory – "Non-contentious" is evidenced by the
support/endorsement of the relevant stakeholders in the territory for
the selected string as a meaningful representation of the name of the
territory, and for the selected delegate.<br>
<br>
F. The Fast Track is experimental in nature – This should be taken into
consideration when delegating names, but should not be interpreted to
mean that delegation under the Fast Track will be temporary. <br>
<br>
G. Criteria determine the number of IDN ccTLDs under the Fast Track –
The number of eligible IDN ccTLDs should be determined by criteria to
select the IDN ccTLD string, and to designate the IDN ccTLD manager. <br>
<br>
The methodology recommended by the IDNC WG includes three stages:<br>
<br>
1. Territory or country preparation of actions required to enter the Fast Track process;<br>
2. Due diligence (evaluation) and submission of delegation request to ICANN; and<br>
3. IANA Delegation Process.<br>
<br>
These stages are described in detail in the attached Draft Final Report and were devised to enable: <br>
<br>
• The relevant actors in the territory to self-assess and determine
whether the delegation of an IDN ccTLD under the Fast Track process is
feasible; and<br>
• The relevant stakeholders to select a string for the IDN ccTLD and prepare for a delegation request. <br>
<br>
The Report proposes the following criteria to select a string for an IDN ccTLD:<br>
<br>
1. To be eligible under the Fast Track a territory should be listed
on the International Standard ISO 3166-1 Codes for the representation
of names of countries and their subdivisions – Part 1: Country Codes.<br>
2. Identify "official" language and script. An official language is
considered to be one that has a legal status in the territory or that
serves as a language of administration. The script should not be based
on the 26 letters of the Latin alphabet -- a-z -- that are encoded in
US-ASCII.<br>
3. Select a string that meets meaningfulness and technical
requirements. A string is considered meaningful if it is in the
official language and:<br>
a. Is the name of the Territory; or<br>
b. A part of the name of the territory that denotes the territory in the language; or <br>
c. A short-form designation for the name of the territory, recognizably<br>
denoting it in the indicated language.<br>
<br>
Ongoing Discussions and Potential Implementation Issues<br>
<br>
Included below are some of the issues expected to be part of the
discussions during the Paris meeting, within the IDNC WG as they
finalize the Report, and at stakeholder group meetings and the public
workshop. <br>
<br>
- Request should be non-contentious within the territory <br>
<br>
A minority group of IDNC WG members have suggested that Principle E
should reflect that the selected string should not only be
non-contentious within the territory, but also be non-contentious
across territories. The majority of the IDNC WG indicated opposition to
broadening the principle. The basis for their opposition included
avoiding the implications and impact of an objection procedure under
the Fast Track. <br>
<br>
- Objection Procedure<br>
<br>
Against including an objection procedure: Some IDNC WG members have
suggested that introducing an objection procedure could impinge on the
sovereignty of territories in determining the name of their territory,
and would add an unnecessary complication to the process. Assuming that
a selected string meets the specified criteria, an objection procedure
would enable territories or other entities to co-determine or object to
the name of a country, dependency, or other area of particular
geopolitical interest. <br>
<br>
Support for including an objection procedure: Some IDNC WG members
expressed the view that an objection procedure, or at least a formal
public comment process, is necessary to enable ICANN and the ICANN
Board to deal with objections to a selected string from the worldwide
community. They have noted that, without a pre-defined process and
criteria, the Board is left dealing with public comments on its own and
potentially through ad-hoc processes. <br>
<br>
For transparency reasons, the IDNC WG did agree that the selected
string, once vetted against technical and linguistic criteria, should
be published on the ICANN website.<br>
<br>
- Legal Arrangement Between ICANN and IDN ccTLD Manager<br>
<br>
The IDNC WG has not made any recommendation on a legal arrangement,
considering it outside their scope to advise the ICANN Board on this
matter. It is deemed to be an implementation issue.<br>
<br>
Although the IDNC WG discussed including a statement in the Final
Report on the issue of ensuring compliance to IDNA Protocol and IDN
Guidelines, the views of the WG diverged on this topic. <br>
<br>
Some IDNC WG members questioned the need for a compulsory arrangement
between ICANN and the IDN ccTLD manager. Other working group members –
and the GNSO Council – have stated that the IDN ccTLD registries should
be required to follow the ICANN IDN guidelines in the same way as gTLD
registries, and ICANN should have a contract or some other form of
agreement with the IDN ccTLD operator that includes appropriate
technical, operational and financial requirements. Such an arrangement
was viewed to ensure a smooth transition of the Fast Track IDN ccTLD to
the ccNSO PDP IDN process once it is established. <br>
<br>
In addition, some working group members have insisted that a mechanism
will be required to ensure the security and stability of the DNS
(including compliance with IDNA protocol and IDN guidelines), which is
an overarching requirement for Fast Track. <br>
<br>
- Financial Contribution<br>
<br>
The IDNC WG has not considered financial contributions (either an
application fee or an annual contribution) in its discussions. It was
considered to be out of scope, and more appropriately addressed as an
implementation issue. However, this issue was raised at several public
meetings. Based on these discussions, some members of the IDNC WG
expressed a view that any financial contribution should be given on a
voluntary basis, as is currently the case for (ASCII) ccTLDs, while
other members (and the GNSO Council) publicly expressed that they
expect a reasonable financial contribution from IDN ccTLDs as part of a
legal arrangement with ICANN.<br>
<br>
- Timing Issues <br>
<br>
Initiation of the Fast Track will enable introduction of IDN ccTLDs and
new (IDN) gTLDs at about the same time. ICANN Staff is coordinating
efforts so that work between the two processes can take advantage of
each other and aim at a similar launch date. However, should one
process be delayed for unexpected reasons it is not considered a viable
solution to delay the other process (this view has been reinforced by
the GNSO Council).<br>
<br>
ICANN Stakeholders<br>
<br>
It is anticipated that the ccNSO, GAC, GNSO Council, GNSO
Constituencies (Registrars, Registries, Business, IP, ISP, and NCUC),
ALAC, and others will develop formal opinions during or soon after the
Paris ICANN meeting.<br>
<br>
Implementation Work <br>
<br>
In addressing the feasibility of implementing the IDNC WG recommendations, it is expected that ICANN Staff will need to explore:<br>
<br>
• A request for information process (RFI) on expected use of the Fast Track;<br>
• Issues surrounding the establishment of the Technical Committee;<br>
• Issues surrounding the establishment of the Language Expert Advisory Panel;<br>
• Development of a process to receive submissions of a selected string;<br>
• Issues surrounding evidence of support by relevant stakeholders in territory for selected IDN ccTLD string;<br>
• Coordination between ICANN, the Technical Committee, and LEAP; and<br>
• Conducting review, and potential update, of IANA practices
relating to the maintenance of the repository and requirements for an
IDN table.<br>
Reference Documents & Events<br>
• 5 October 2007 the ccNSO letter to ccTLD managers including survey
to assess the interest and readiness for introduction of IDN ccTLDs. <br>
• 5 December 2007, results of ccNSO survey, showing 86% of the respondents had an interest in a fast track approach.<br>
• 2 November 2007, ICANN Board chartered IDNC WG and invited SOs, ACs to appoint members. <br>
• 14 December 2007, IDNC WG established with members from the GAC,
ccNSO GNSO, ALAC, SSAC, Technical Community and ICANN Staff.<br>
• 2008 - IDNC WG conducted numerous teleconference meetings,
face-to-face meetings in New Delhi and Geneva, and numerous public
workshops and discussions in conjunction with other regional meetings,
such as in New Delhi and Dubai. <br>
• 1 February 2008, IDNC WG posted "Discussion Draft of the Initial Report" for public comment. <br>
• 11 February 2008, Draft Initial Report was discussed at ICANN New Delhi meting. <br>
• 4 April 2008, IDNC WG posted Interim Report for public comment.<br>
• April, May 2008, Interim Report discussed at the ICANN Regional
Meeting in Dubai, UAE, the RIPE meeting in Berlin, and the APTLD
meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. <br>
• 13 June 2008, IDNC WG posted Draft Final Report for public comment. <br>
• 21 June 2008, IDNC WG meeting at Paris ICANN meeting, along with
public workshop. The GAC, ccNSO, GNSO, and ALAC have the Final Report
on their agenda for discussion in Paris. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>