[council] Personal concerns about GNSO reponse to ccNSO-GAC Issues Report on IDN Issues

[Robin Gross]

I share all of the concerns that Avri raises below.  Obviously this 
policy is no where near ready for approval.   We are going to have to 
spend some time fixing these recommendations and provide some guidance 
on this process.

Robin


Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Part of today's conversation involves a discussion on whether we 
> are ready to vote on our recommendations at our next meeting.  During
> the LA meeting, I pretty much kept my viewpoints out of the discussion 
> because I was concerned with accurately reflecting the state of discussion
> in the council.  At this point I would like to add my personal 
> opinions to the 
> discussion.
>
> I am uncomfortable with many of the proposals we are making and 
> decided I should send in a note prior to the meeting on some of the issues
> that most concern me.
>
> In general I believe our answers give the governments and the ccNSO
> a unconstrained  slate on which they can designate as many names as 
> they wish
> as being in ccTLD space.
>
> From various conversations I have been involved in, this could come to 
> mean
> something as broad as:
>
> - every possible name of a country or territory's name 
> - in every possible script/ language
> - including all possible variants
>
> We have also heard discussions that indicate that if one country needs 
> a certain
> number of ccTLDs, then obviously, for the sake of fairness, every 
> country needs
> the same number. 
>
> As it currently stands, I cannot vote to approve our current statement.
>
> Some of my specific issues:
>
>> /b) Could there be several IDN strings for a ‘territory’ in a script? 
>> If so, who would /
>> /determine the number and what are the criteria?/  
>>  
>> Proposed GNSO response: If multiple scripts are used in a territory 
>> and if it is 
>> judged that those scripts will add value to the user experience, then 
>> the sovereign 
>> government should make the choice of which scripts and what number of 
>> scripts 
>> will be in use for IDN ccTLDs. 
>>
>
> I am not sure that we actually answered the question in this one.
>
> I do not read the question as asking about multiple scripts, but rather
> read it as asking about multiple names in a single script.
>
> I think that this would be problematic, as this would give license for a
> multitude of names might be in general use for a territory or country.
> E.g in the US, we have  US, USA, UnitedStates, UnitedStatesofAmerica,
> TheStates, America, LandoftheFreeHomeoftheBrave  etc...  
> Should all of these be designated as ccTLDs.
> and should they all be designated in all scripts/languages that are used, 
> and even only those officially designated in at least one of the states,  
> in the US?
>
> If we extrapolate this for all countries/territories, all variants and 
> all 
> scripts/languages, we will find that a very large chunk of the name 
> spaces been being assigned to the ccNSO and to
> government control.
>
> Is this something the GNSO is comfortable with?
>
>
>> */Should a list of IDN ccTLD strings be mandated?/*  
>> / /
>> /In the US-ASCII case, ccTLD strings are currently primfarily based 
>> on the ISO 3166-1 /
>> /Alpha 2 list. If a similar mechanism were adopted for IDN ccTLDs, 
>> this could mean that /
>> /every ISO 3166 entry would have an equivalent IDN ccTLD string(s) to 
>> represent it./  
>>  
>> /a) Is such a list necessary?/  
>>  
>> Proposed GNSO response: Probably not. Would such a list result in an 
>> earlier 
>> ability to meet the needs of non-English users? If so, it would seem 
>> to be a good 
>> idea. If not, then it seems like the higher priority should be to 
>> meet user needs 
>> and, if that can be done without a list, that might be the better 
>> approach. If the list 
>> avoided conflicts and confusion, it might be needed (e.g., in 
>> situations where 
>> there are reports of conflicts and confusion among ccTLD members 
>> themselves 
>> or where there are reports of such conflicts and confusion from 
>> traditional 
>> standards bodies like the ISO).  
>
>
> As was shown in the conversation we had in LA, the lack of a list, may 
> mean that
> an implicit definition will be used that may open up 
> the possibility of an indefinitely
> large number of potential names being designated as ccTLD space.
>
> Is this something the GNSO is comfortable with?
>
>> /e) Who would develop the criteria and relevant policies for 
>> identifying IDN ccTLDs?/  
>>  
>> Proposed GNSO response: The ccNSO is the policy making body for 
>> ccTLDs. It 
>> seems like the appropriate body for this task with appropriate input 
>> from the 
>> broader community within ICANN and with input from the abovementioned 
>> non-ICANN entities to establish the legitimacy of the process and the 
>> outcome.  
>
>
> I read this as saying that the GSNO agrees that deciding whether a 
> string belongs in 
> ccTLD space is a decision that is made by the ccNSO.
>
> Without pre-established constraints, there is no limit to what might 
> be deemed an 
> appropriate IDN ccTLD.
>
> I don't see how we can agree to a formulation that is this open.
>
> a.
>