[council] Explanation and background on agenda item 5 - Board resolution on ccNSO/GAC questions
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Tue Jul 10 15:59:54 UTC 2007
Hi,
> Item 5: Approach to handling board request on GAC IDN questions (20
> min)
> http://gac.icann.org/web/communiques/gac28com.pdf
This item is based on the Board's resolution that the ICANN
community, including the GNSO work:
- provide the board responses on the list of 'issues and questions
that need to be addressed in order to move forward with IDN ccTLDs
associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes in a manner that
ensures the continued security and stability of the Internet.
- "work collaboratively, taking the technical limitations and
requirements into consideration, to explore both an interim and an
overall approach to IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-
letter codes and recommend a course of action to the Board in a
timely manner. "
The GSNO council needs to decide on how it wants to approach these
two resolutions.
thanks
a.
--------
Background:
The IDN outcomes report
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/idn-wg-fr-22mar07.htm
did discuss this question and did report support but not agreement:
> 4.2.9
>
> Support for a country’s rights to define/reserve IDN strings for
> the country name.
>
> Alternative view; to also accept a country’s responsibility/right
> to approve any IDN gTLD strings featuring its particular script, if
> unique for that country.
> Alternative view; to also acknowledge a country’s right to
> influence the definitions/tables of its scripts/languages.
>
> Alternative view; to require a country’s support for an IDN gTLD
> string in “its” script, in analogy with the considerations for geo-
> political names.
>
> Alternative view: recognition that countries’ rights are limited to
> their respective jurisdictions.
>
> Note: There are potential political issues in the use of scripts,
> as some countries/regions claim “rights” to the standards for their
> scripts. This has also been expressed as “a need to prove the
> support of the respective community for accepting a TLD in its
> particular script”.
The RN WG also looked into the issues of ccTLDs.
In terms of IDM 2 character it recommended:
> Two-character IDNs need further work including outreach to
> experts and discussion related to policies for two-character
> IDNs and IDN versions of the ISO 3166 list. This is a
> possible area for further work by the IDN WG.
And in terms of Geographic names it recommended:
> Top Level (ASCII and Unicode strings):
> In order to approve the introduction of new gTLDs using geographic
> identifiers, ICANN shall require the solicitation of input from GAC
> members(s) and/or government(s) associated with the potential
> geographic string (ASCII and/or Unicode).
>
> Additionally, Registries incorporated under the laws of those
> countries that
> have expressly supported the guidelines of the WIPO Standing Committee
> on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical
> Indications as adopted by the WIPO General Assembly (ìMember Statesî),
> or have other related applicable national laws must take
> appropriate action
> to comply with those guidelines and those national laws. Registries
> incorporated under the laws of those countries that have not expressly
> supported the guidelines of the WIPO Standing Committee on the Law of
> Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications as adopted
> by the WIPO General Assembly (ìNon-Member Statesî) must take
> appropriate action to comply with any related applicable national
> laws.
>
------------
Full text of resolutions.
> Item 5: Approach to handling board request on GAC IDN questions (20
> min)
> http://gac.icann.org/web/communiques/gac28com.pdf
>
> Resolved (07.___), the ICANN Board respectfully requests that that
> the ICANN community including the GNSO, ccNSO, GAC, and ALAC
> provide the Board with responses to the published list of issues
> and questions that need to be addressed in order to move forward
> with IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes in
> a manner that ensures the continued security and stability of the
> Internet. The Board requests status reports regarding progress by
> the conclusion of the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles in October 2007.
>
> Resolved (07.___), the ICANN Board respectfully requests that the
> ICANN community including the GNSO, ccNSO, GAC, and ALAC continue
> to work collaboratively, taking the technical limitations and
> requirements into consideration, to explore both an interim and an
> overall approach to IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-
> letter codes and recommend a course of action to the Board in a
> timely manner.
>
More information about the council
mailing list