[council] ccNSO-GAC Issues Report on IDN Issues

Avri Doria avri at psg.com
Wed Nov 28 15:22:05 UTC 2007


While I tend to agree with your way of putting this, I am not sure  
there is universal agreement on this.
I am not even sure if everyone, or a supermajority, within the GNSO  
council agrees.

 From conversations I have been having since I started trying to  
understand the scope of the IDNC
and the issue of trying to get more then 2 GNSO members to  
participate I have perceived diametrically
opposed basic assumptions (with a variety of variants):

1. The entire name space including IDNs, with the exception of 3166-1  
2 character ccTLD space, is
currently within the GNSO remit.

2. All gTLDs that have been allocated or will be allocated are within  
the remit of the GNSO, but they
not within the remit until they are allocated to gTLD space.   
Unassigned name space in not within
either SOs remit until assigned.

Personally I have always thought it was the first option and the  
second option had not even occurred to
me until someone argued from that perspective.

This appears to be a key basic assumption in trying to determine  
whether the GNSO merits equal
participation or representation in the IDNC.

1.  If you hold to the first point of view or some variant of it,  
then the methods to be determined in the
IDNC are the first steps in the reapportionment of TLD name space.   
I.e a method is determined by which
some of the TLD name space that is currently within the GNSO remit is  
assigned to the ccNSO remit.
In which case the GNSO belongs at the table as an equal participant  
with the ccNSO and GAC

2. If you hold to the second point of view, or some variant of it,  
then the methods to be determined by the
IDNC  are the remit of the ccNSO and GAC.  and while it s appropriate  
that the GNSO have representatives,
essentially liaisons, within the group, the GNSO is not fundamentally  
responsible for the decisions the group

This is an issue for which we need to understand the GNSO position on  
in order to finish the work on the
GNSO response to the issues paper and an issue that affects the GNSO  
position in regard to the the IDNC.



On 20 nov 2007, at 17.24, philip.sheppard at aim.be wrote:

> Avri raises some good points about the potential breadth of what we  
> may be
> saying to the CCSO/GAC. This seems to be a function of us wanting  
> to leave
> the tough questions to the CCSO/GAC!
> Our approach could be turned around.
> Assumption
> In the absence of an ICANN policy there will be NO IDN names  
> reserved in
> the CC space. They will ALL be available to any applicant via our new
> process in the g space. The task before ICANN is to create a reserved
> list/allocation for CC related IDNS - or not.
> Conclusion and a key question
> The question should be therefore who serves the public interest  
> best with
> respect to CC related IDNS? A CC registry/Government or any one at  
> all?
> If we can answer this question, - with criteria to assess the public
> interest - we will perhaps advance the debate without needing to  
> address
> issues of volume.
> Philip

More information about the council mailing list