[council] Final Proposed version 2.0 of IDN Guidelines posted

Ken Stubbs kstubbs at afilias.info
Tue Nov 8 22:59:12 UTC 2005


I am a bit confused about your concerns expressed in your e-mail below ..

With the exception of one consistency edit, the wording you are 
expressing concerns about was taken _straight out_ of the version of the 
specific document "Guidelines for the Implementation of 
Internationalized Domain Names" *that was approved June 20, 2003. *

These Guidelines were developed collaboratively by ICANN and leading
Internationaized Domain Names (IDN) registries. Version 1.0 of these
Guidelines was published on 20 June 2003, coinciding with the launch of
deployment of IDNs under the IETF's Proposed Standard reflected in RFCs
3490, 3491, and 3492.

The implementation approach set forth in these Guidelines was endorsed
by the ICANN Board on 27 March 2003

Ken Stubbs *

Ross Rader wrote:

> I've missed the boat on the public comment period, so I would expect 
> these concerns are moot as it relates to the board's consideration of 
> the document.
> However for those that might be interested, I wanted to express the 
> concern that these "guidelines" are moving substantial policy making 
> responsibilities from the GNSO to the gTLD administrators. This scope 
> of policy responsibility is only suitable in the ccTLD context. Given 
> the authorship, I am not surprised that this was written up in this 
> fashion. I still have faint hope that the board sees fit to clean up 
> this issue prior to endorsing the document as an acceptable set of 
> guidelines.
> This comment pertains to guideline six specifically, which reads:
> "6. Top-level domain registries will work collaboratively with 
> relevant stakeholders to develop IDN-specific registration policies, 
> with the objective of achieving consistent approaches to IDN 
> implementation for the benefit of DNS users worldwide. Top-level 
> domain registries will work collaboratively with each other to address 
> common issues, for example by forming or appointing a consortium to 
> coordinate contact with
> external communities, elicit the assistance of support groups, and 
> establish global
> fora."
> There is also a larger policy issue which has not been dealt with at 
> any level, which I had hoped would have been clarified through this 
> process, which is the extent to which the relationship between ICANN 
> and the gTLD administrators permits the registries to arbitrarily 
> offer these types of services. I am not sure whether or not it would 
> be appropriate for the registry constituency to address this in the 
> context of IDNs, but this should have been explicitly addressed prior 
> to this work being undertaken.
> -ross
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20051108/0d0443c6/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list