[council] Some personal thoughts after listening to the ccNSO recording.

[Avri Doria]

Hi

I think there has been an essential misunderstanding of the position  
regarding equality on the Fast Track and in the process of deciding on  
the apportionment issue of IDN TLDs.   And while I have tried to make  
this point to Chris, I have obviously failed in doing so.

The issue was never one of an equality in numbers - though, as  
evidenced in their call, Chris insists on referring to it that way.   
The issue was related to the core issue of who is responsible for  
determining the apportionment of IDN TLDs into i-gTLD and i-ccTLD name  
spaces.  My feeling, and I believe this is supported by many in the  
council, is that until such time as the community resolves this issue,  
it remains a community issue and neither a ccNSO nor a gNSO issue.   
Thus, for a fast track WG on methods for assign a few non contentious  
i-TLDs, to actually succeed it needed to be done in a group where the  
ccNSO and gNSO were represented as peers.  When Chris and Janis first  
mentioned this idea to me, I had understood them to be planning just  
such a WG of equals, though it was clear that the ccNSO was going to  
take the responsibility of initiating the process.  It wasn't until  
the charter was presented to the board that I realized he had done  
something other then what I had expected and that he included the gNSO  
in a lesser capacity.  And while I objected to him at the time, before  
the board voted, it does not seem as if I succeed in conveying that  
message successfully.

While I had originally been in favor of asking the Board to reconsider  
its decision to charter the IDNC WG according to the ccNSO proposed  
charter, I certainly accept the alternate proposal as put forward by  
Chuck as a good way to proceed and in fact have come to believe that,  
at this point in time, it is the better path to solution.  The reason  
for making sure all stakeholders were represented in the Fast Track  
working group would have been to allow it to make multi stakeholder  
recommendations without needing to wait for all issues to be resolved  
- something which I believe was in the sprit of the Boards  
resolution.  It is of course too late for that now.

In listening to the ccNSO call, I believe  that the critical  
difference between the SOs on this issue boils down to:

- the ccNSO council believes that the decision regarding the  
apportionment  IDN ccTLD name space is completely and solely within  
the scope of a ccNSO policy process.   There seems to be a belief  
among those in the ccNSO council that the ccNSO is entitled to  
territory names and that it is no one's business outside of the GAC  
and ccNSO how many i-ccTLDs are created.

- the GNSO council believes that any decision regarding the  
apportionment of IDN TLDs is a community wide decision and that the i- 
ccTLD name space will be within the scope of ccNSO policy process only  
after the board has approved a recommendation on apportionment that  
comes from all IDN domain name stakeholders

As things stand, I believe that the ccNSO council is interested in a  
face to face meeting with the GNSO council.   In this spirit I also  
personally welcome the possibility of meeting council to council with  
the ccNSO in ND.  I say this in the hope that in such a face to face  
meeting we can talk about substantial issues based on a Board  
resolution that supports our recommendation for a process to resolve  
this critical difference in views.

a.