[council] Draft - Appeal to Board relating to IDNC WG

[Robin Gross]

Thanks to both Avri and the team for this draft.   I also support  
Chuck's proposed edits to the draft.

The sooner we can transmit the letter to the board, the better.

A fundamental question to be answered by the entire community is  
"where to draw the line between ccTLD space and gTLD space?"

Robin


On Dec 19, 2007, at 2:13 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

>
> Thanks Avri. This was very well written.  I compliment the group in
> getting this down in writing.
>
> In case we do decide to send this document, here are a few minor edits
> and some other suggested changes that I think are nonmaterial in terms
> of the content plus a few observations and questions.
>
> I think it would be helpful to do a global change of "Council" to  
> "GNSO
> Council" just to make it clear which Council we are talking about
> because the ccNSO has a Council as well.
>
> 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: change "limited number of IDN TLD
> representing territories" to "limited number of IDN TLDs representing
> territories".
>
> End of 2nd paragraph: I suggest we change 'IDN ccTLDs' to 'IDN TLDs
> associated with ISO 3166-1 country codes' with a footnote that says
> something like, "Throughout the rest of this document we use the term
> 'IDN ccTLDs' because that is the term used by the Board, the ccNSO and
> the GAC."  The rationale for this change is to recognize that IDN TLDs
> are not really ccTLDs until such time as a decision is made to  
> apportion
> the IDN TLDs to the ccNSO, thereby being consistent with our  
> argument in
> the text that follows.
>
> Under 'Basis for allocating TLDs to the GTLD and ccTLD name  
> spaces', 2nd
> paragraph, 3rd sentence: change 'IDN ccTLD' to 'IDN ccTLDs'.
>
> In the same section, 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence: I would put 'Among
> most in the GNSO' in brackets until such time that we establish  
> that is
> the case and also suggest that we may want to say 'Among most on the
> GNSO Council' unless we plan to involve the broader GNSO in making  
> this
> determination.
>
> The same sentence says, "the assumption is still that all TLDs, except
> for .mil, .edu, and the ISO3166-1 defined ccTLDs remain within the  
> remit
> of the GNSO."  Shouldn't we also include .int, .arpa and .gov?
>
> The last sentence of the same paragraph reads, "The conclusions of  
> such
> a process should also be permit, and may also require, a  
> redefinition of
> the ccNSO and GNSO remits as they are currently defined."  First, I
> think the word 'be' should be deleted.  Second, where is the  
> definition
> of the GNSO name space currently defined?  I understand that some  
> assume
> the definition in this document, but what is that assumption based on?
> If it is not defined anywhere other than in people's memory, we may  
> want
> to say, "a definition of the ccNSO and GNSO name spaces."
>
> Footnote 2: I believe "It should noted that the recommends . . "  
> should
> say, "It should noted that the recommendations . . "
>
> The last paragraph, last sentence of the same paragraph says, "Until
> such time as the ICANN community at large has decided on the proper
> apportionment of the IDN TLD name space for the ccNSO's remit, any
> fast-track method must be developed with balanced participation  
> from the
> GNSO, along with the ccNSO and GAC."  As I said to you elsewhere, I
> personally think that many will perceive 'balanced participation' to
> mean 'equal numbers'.  My understanding is that that is not what is
> intended here; if not, I suggest we make that clear.  I do not think
> that we necessarily need equal numbers, but I do believe that any
> decisions regarding what names are defined to be in GNSO and ccNSO  
> name
> spaces requires participation by the whole community and not just the
> GNSO or ccNSO, as stated elsewhere in this document.
>
> Under the questions:
>
> - The second bullet reads, "It is unclear who the intended  
> registries of
> the to be defined IDN ccTLDs are. Are these the traditional ccTLD
> registries as defined by RFC 1591? Are these the IDNs associated with
> language and cultural communities as envisioned by the IDN WG?  Or are
> these new IDN ccTLDs critical national resources that come under some
> form of national administration?"  It is not clear to me why we are
> asking these questions. They are questions that certainly need to be
> answered and they have been raised in the Issues Paper and in the just
> released IDNC document.
>
> - In the last bullet change 'insure' to 'ensure'.
>
> Under "The need for adequate GNSO representation on the IDNC WG":
>
> - In the 1st paragraph, 1st sentence, depending on whether
> 'redefinition' is changed to 'definition' earlier in the document, we
> may want to change it here as well; secondly, 'need to resolved' to
> 'need to be resolved'; third, we use the term 'equal representation'
> here whereas we said balanced representation earlier - equal
> representation in my opinion seems to quite clearly imply numerical
> equality.  I am not sure I agree with this if this group does  
> decide on
> name space allocation questions.
>
> - In the 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence, change 'where' to 'were' and  
> 'is'
> to 'its'.
>
> Under 'GNSO request':
>
> - In the 1st sentence of the 1st paragraph, change 'insure' to  
> 'ensure'
> and change 'general name to space to IDN ccTLDs' to 'general name  
> space
> to the ccNSO'.
>
> - In the 1st sentence of the last paragraph, change 'the GNSO council
> aslo respectfully request' to 'the GNSO Council also respectfully
> requests'.
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- 
> council at gnso.icann.org]
> On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 2:20 PM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: [council] Draft - Appeal to Board relating to IDNC WG
>
> Hi,
>
> The attached document is the draft produced by the small drafting team
> set up for that purpose.
>
> This is not on the agenda for 20 Dec, but rather for 3 Jan.  In the
> meantime we can discuss it on the list and can revise it as necessary
> before the meeting.
>
> At this point I see a few alternative actions:
>
> - After revisions and discussions by the council it is sent to the  
> Board
> - After discssions and a decsion on the 6th, it is sent back to the
> drafting team for further work.
> - After discussion by the council we decide to do somethig ther en  
> send
> this to the Board.
>
> Note: One line in the draft says that this has the agreement of the
> council.  that phrase is [bracketed with a note] as it is obviously  
> not
> (yet) the case.
>
> I thank those who participated in the drafting team.
>
> a.
>
>
>




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20071219/f70e1f51/attachment.html>