[council] Final Proposed version 2.0 of IDN Guidelines posted

Ross Rader ross at tucows.com
Wed Nov 9 01:33:05 UTC 2005

Let me clarify - I'm not aware of any policy that supports the Board 
action to delegate policy development activities, registration or 
otherwise, directly to gTLD registries.

The fact that it is consistent with a prior action, doesn't make it any 
more consistent with the policy framework.

The second point I raised is more of a "the horse has already left the 
barn" lament. I'd be happy to elaborate, but it is secondary to the 
issue I raise above.


Ken Stubbs wrote:
> *Ross....
> 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
> </minutes/minutes-27mar03.htm#InternationalizedDomainNames>.
> 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

More information about the council mailing list