[council] Fwd: ccNSO response to GNSO resolution
Robin Gross
robin at ipjustice.org
Tue Jan 22 00:40:52 UTC 2008
Thanks for giving this so much thought, Chuck. I support your
proposal for moving forward. And I agree that if the IDN ccTLD
string selection criteria ends up being the one quoted below, we
shouldn't have too much disagreement.
Robin
On Jan 21, 2008, at 8:35 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> Here a some of my thoughts in response to this letter as well as
> some suggested action items that I think should be done in the next
> few days.
>
> First of all, I compliment the ccNSO on a well articulated letter
> with what seems to me to be a constructive tone. Second, I suggest
> that Avri officially support the recommendation for a joint ccNSO/
> GNSO meeting in New Delhi, an idea that I believe she has already
> indicated support for. Third, I recommend that we use the time we
> have between now and New Delhi to carefully prepare for the
> proposed joint ccNSO/GNSO meeting in New Delhi. Regarding the latter:
> I believe that completion of the GNSO response to the ccNSO/GAC
> Issues Paper on IDN ccTLDs is a key step. Ideally it would have
> been good to accomplish that before the end of the ccNSO public
> comment period on their IDN ccTLD PDP (25 January). Because that
> is not feasible before the New Delhi meetings, I suggest that,
> before 25 January, Avri send a letter to the ccNSO and to their
> comment site informing them that our response (as requested by the
> Board) will not be completed until New Delhi and we respectfully
> request that our input be considered in the PDP. [Note that we
> would need to act on this before the end of this current week so we
> will have to decide whether or not to do this via our list.]
> I do not think that it will be effective to engage in discussion
> with the ccNSO regarding the issues we are concerned about prior to
> the joint meeting in New Delhi. In my opinion, the chances are too
> high that there will be misunderstanding and even miscommunication
> until both Councils are face to face and that can cause more harm
> to the success of the joint meeting than good.
> As a means of getting our preparation for the joint meeting
> started, I identify the following points from the ccNSO letter to
> the Board for which I believe we need to prepare: 1) The ccNSO
> clearly believes that the issues we raised will take much longer
> than 120 days; 2) they appear to assume that it is possible to
> introduce fast tract IDN ccTLDs before any resolution of the issues
> we raised; 3) they state that as far as the issues relate to IDN
> ccTLDs, they should be the responsibility of the ccNSO; 4) they
> also believe that they must be dealt with in a PDP. I provide my
> preliminary thinking about each of these below.
> 1) The ccNSO clearly believes that the issues we raised will take
> much longer than 120 days.
> The original intent of the 120 day target was to attempt to avoid
> any further delays in the implementation of IDN TLDs (gTLDs or cc
> fast track IDN TLDs).
> I believe that the goal of avoiding further delays remains valid
> and if the 120 day target is unrealistic, then it is important to
> begin work on the issues we raised as soon as possible with the
> goal of at least agreeing to some interim approach until full
> resolution of the issues can be completed.
> 2) They appear to assume that it is possible to introduce fast
> tract IDN ccTLDs before any resolution of the issues we raised.
> I believe that this may be a fundamental difference of opinion
> between the GNSO and ccNSO but not one that necessarily needs to be
> a show stopper. I think it is less important for the two SO's to
> come to agreement on the assumption than it is to jointly develop
> an interim approach as suggested in the previous item.
> I don't think we should spend a lot of time trying to convince them
> that a final policy for allocating new TLDs into GNSO and ccNSO
> name space has to happen before any IDN TLDs are introduced, but
> instead we should work together to come up with a way that our
> concerns can be addressed in the short term. I Therefore, I
> recommend that we focus our attention on coming up with some ways
> forward on this that satisfy our needs with regard to TLD
> allocation and still allow the ccNSO to deal with the bigger policy
> issues over a longer period of time.
> 3) They state that as far as the issues relate to IDN ccTLDs, they
> should be the responsibility of the ccNSO.
> This is a point where I believe there is gap in understanding
> between the GNSO and ccNSO or at least there does not seem to be an
> recognition of a key point we tried to make: allocation of new TLDs
> into the DNS is an issue that affects both SO's and therefore must
> be worked by both SO's.
> This is an area that I think deserves caution because I think it
> would be counterproductive for us to give the impression that the
> GNSO wants to determine policy for the ccNSO so we should make it
> clear from the outset that that is not our intent.
> This is a place where an example might be helpful. Consider the
> case of .berlin. Should that be a GNSO or a ccNSO. It appears to
> me at a minimum that guidelines need to be in place before .berlin
> is introduce that determine what SO has policy responsibility. And
> any such guidelines need to be developed by both SO's because both
> SO's are impacted.
>
> 4) They believe that the issues the GNSO raised must be dealt with
> in a PDP.
> If this is the case, which PDP process should be used? the GNSO
> PDP or the ccNSO PDP? It may not matter too much provided that the
> PDP used allows for full participation by the other SO with regard
> to the TLD allocation issue.
> At present, there is not a joint PDP process in the ICANN Bylaws;
> maybe this is an idea for further development.
> The idea of a less formal joint working group was made to
> facilitate a timely response to the issues. In my opinion, waiting
> two years for a ccNSO PDP process doesn't work, at least not for
> the development of an interim approach to the broader TLD
> allocation issues. This seems to be a key area where the two SO's
> need to focus attention.
> In the meantime, I am confident that we can work together with the
> ccNSO. From what I have observed so far, the ccNSO is heading in a
> direction that is not far off from what we could support. In the
> draft issues report that the IDNC is considering, one idea under
> consideration for IDN ccTLD string selection is this: "the string
> must be a meaningful representation of the name of the Territory or
> an abbreviation of the name of the Territory in the relevant
> script". Please note that this is not a final position. But if it
> is adopted it provides some defined limitations in terms of IDN
> ccTLDs and could possibly even be used in developing interim
> guidelines for allocation of TLDs into the two policy name spaces.o
> Finally, I have concerns about the following statement in the next
> to last paragraph of the ccNSO letter to the Board: "During the
> process the delegation of new TLDs would need to be suspended to
> ensure that TLDs are not created in circumstances that would be a
> breach of the policy being developed." I think we need to get
> clarification of this in the proposed joint meeting. Considering
> that the ccNSO PDP is estimated to take at least two years, this
> could easily be a way of delaying IDN gTLDs, depending on what it
> means. I am not suggesting that it was intended that way but I
> definitely think we need to get clarity in that regard.
>
> In conclusion, I am proposing the following action times, the first
> two of which need to happen in the next four days (NLT 25 Jan.):
> Avri send a letter to Chris Dispain officially supporting the
> recommendation for a joint ccNSO/GNSO meeting in New Delhi.
> Avri send a letter to the ccNSO and to their comment site informing
> them that our response to the ccNSO/GAC Issues Paper on IDN ccTLDs
> (as requested by the Board) will not be completed until New Delhi
> and we respectfully request that our input be considered in the PDP.
> We initiate a planning process for the joint meeting in New Delhi
> ASAP.
> To facilitate moving forward on the above so that we can meet the
> time constraints, please comment on the Council list right away.
>
> Chuck
>
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-
> council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 6:30 AM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: [council] Fwd: ccNSO response to GNSO resolution
> Importance: High
>
> Forwarded with permission
>
> a.
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: "Chris Disspain"
>> Date: 21 January 2008 12:11:37 GMT+01:00
>>
>> Subject: ccNSO response to GNSO resolution
>>
>> Peter and Paul,
>> Attached is the ccNSO response to the GNSO resolution of 3 January
>> 2008. Please forward this letter to the ICANN Board list at your
>> earliest convenience.
>> Pursuant to the letter I shall be formally writing to Avri Doria
>> tomorrow to invite the GNSO to a joint meeting in New Delhi.
>> Kind Regards,
>> Chris Disspain
>> CEO - auDA
>> Australia's Domain Name Administrator
>> ceo at auda.org.au
>> www.auda.org.au
>> Important Notice - This email may contain information which is
>> confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended
>> for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the
>> intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of
>> this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please
>> notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please
>> consider the environment before printing this email.
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/20080121/6cacdaed/attachment.html>
More information about the council
mailing list