AW: [registrars] Further summary of the GNSO Council Meeting 17 Jan 2008

[Eric Brunner-Williams]

Tim Ruiz wrote:
> Tom,
>
> My concern is the possible realm of answers to the questions raised in
> the joint GAC/ccNSO issues paper. 
>
> The announcement is here:
> http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19dec07.htm
>
> The issues paper is here: 
> http://www.icann.org/topics/idn/ccnso-gac-issues-report-on-idn-09jul07.pdf
>
> If you read those questions carefully, and consider the possible
> answers, it's clear that we very likely will have dozens or hundreds of
> TLDs in addition to the exisiting ccTLDs that may operate outside of the
> same rules and requirements as gTLDs. The fast track process concerns me
> because it is an attempt to move forward with a partical implementation
> without having those important questions answered, and could in and of
> itself create a precendent used during any subsequent ccNSO PDP.
>
> And finally, I question whether this even should be primarily a ccNSO
> issue any more than it should be primarily a GNSO issue. I don't think
> either SO should proceed without the complete and equal involvement of
> the other given what's at stake and who the ultimate stakeholders are.
>
> As we both know, a large number of ccTLDs are basically promoted as
> quasi-gTLDs - .tv, .ws, .cc, .fm, .am, and so on. I think the
> implications of how IDN TLDs are fast tracked and/or otherwise assigned
> should be of concern to gTLD operators and gTLD Accredited Registrars.
>
>
>
> Tim Ruiz
> Vice President
> Corp. Development & Policy
> The Go Daddy Group, Inc.
> Direct: 319-329-9804
> Fax: 480-247-4516
> tim at godaddy.com
>
> How am I doing? Please contact my direct supervisor at
> president at godaddy.com with any feedback.
>
> This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only
> by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential
> information. If you have received this email in error, please
> immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and
> any copy of this message and its attachments.
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: AW: [registrars] Further summary of the GNSO Council Meeting
> 17 Jan 2008
> From: "Thomas Keller" <tom at 1und1.de>
> Date: Mon, January 21, 2008 9:43 am
> To: "'Tim Ruiz'" <tim at godaddy.com>, "'St
> Tim,
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by broader policy. What exactly is your
> concern?
>
> Best,
>
> tom
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
> [mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Tim Ruiz
> Gesendet: Montag, 21. Januar 2008 16:27
> An: Stéphane Van Gelder
> Cc: 'Registrars Constituency'
> Betreff: RE: [registrars] Further summary of the GNSO Council Meeting 17
> Jan
> 2008
>
>
> Stephane,
>
> An accented .FR is one thing, but it seems that in some cases the fast
> tracked IDN could go beyond that, as well as those comptemplated by
> whatever
> broader policy might ultimately come out of the ccNSO PDP.
>
> Tim
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Further summary of the GNSO Council Meeting
> 17 Jan 2008
> From: Stiphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>
> Date: Sun, January 20, 2008 12:07 pm
> To: "'Tim Ruiz'" <tim at godaddy.com>, "'Registrars Constituency'"
> <registrars at gnso.icann.org>
>
>   
>> I am concerned because this further broadens the ccTLD universe beyond
>> the
>>     
> current two character codes >specified in ISO 3166, and may set a
> precedent
> used by the ccNSO PDP. A major question is what kind of >agreement with
> ICANN will these fall under? If they fall under the existing loose ccTLD
> framework >agreements then these new IDN name
>   
>> spacess:
>>     
>
>   
>> 1. Will not required to comply with consensus policies as Accredited
>>     
> Registrars and gTLD Registries are.
>   
>> 2. Will not be required to use *only* Accredited Registrars, or to even
>> use
>>     
> them at all.
>   
>> 3. Will have no ownership requirement limitations so they can own
>>     
> registrars, registrars can own them, can >sell direct, etc.
>   
>> 4. Will have no requirement to fund ICANN through transactional fees or
>> any
>>     
> other method.
>
> Hello Tim,
>
> I was surprised to read your comments highlighted above.
> I hope I'm not misunderstanding what you're saying, but to me it seems
> perfectly normal to have ccTLDs that are operating outside the system of
> registrars accredited by ICANN for gTLDs.
> If a ccTLD registry gets assigned an IDN ccTLD, then it should be
> handled by
> its own accredited registrars. For example, if AFNIC gets assigned the
> accented version of .FR, AFNIC accredited registrars would certainly not
> expect to have to go through an ICANN registration process to sell it.
> In actual fact, as an AFNIC board member, I think I can say with a
> certain
> amount of certainty that AFNIC would probably object to having ICANN
> decide
> whether it should manager an accented .FR or not.
>
>
> Stiphane Van Gelder
> Directeur Giniral / General manager
> INDOM - Noms de domaine / Domain names
> 124-126, rue de Provence
> 75008 Paris. France
> 0820 77 7000
> (Prix d'un appel local)
> De l'itranger (calling from outside France): + 33 1 76 70 05 67
> www.indom.com www.stephanevangelder.com
>
>
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
> [mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] De la part de Tim Ruiz
> Envoyi : vendredi 18 janvier 2008 14:41
> @ : Registrars Constituency
> Objet : [registrars] Further summary of the GNSO Council Meeting 17 Jan
> 2008
>
>
> As Tom forwarded, Avri was confirmed for another term as Chair of the
> GNSO.
>
> A group of Councilors will be formulating the next steps for the Tasting
> PDP, due by the Meeting in New Delhi for Council consideration.
>
> A group of Councilors and possibly one or two others will be considering
> the reports of the Transfers WG and recommending a way forward on the
> issues raised and prioritized in those reports.
>
> Registrar Councilors will be involved in both groups.
>
> Another issue that I believe should be of concern to the RC and watched
> closely is the Fast Track process for .IDNs being developed by IDNC WG
> of the ccNSO:
> http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/idncwg.htm
>
> This process will be used to assign one .IDN to ccTLD managers before
> completion of the ccPDP on IDN ccTLDs. The .IDN will be a localized
> version of their ccTLD.
>
> I am concerned because this further broadens the ccTLD universe beyond
> the current two character codes specified in ISO 3166, and may set a
> precedent used by the ccNSO PDP. A major question is what kind of
> agreement with ICANN will these fall under? If they fall under the
> existing loose ccTLD framework agreements then these new IDN name
> spacess:
>
> 1. Will not required to comply with consensus policies as Accredited
> Registrars and gTLD Registries are.
> 2. Will not be required to use *only* Accredited Registrars, or to even
> use them at all.
> 3. Will have no ownership requirement limitations so they can own
> registrars, registrars can own them, can sell direct, etc.
> 4. Will have no requirement to fund ICANN through transactional fees or
> any other method.
>
> This expansion of the ccTLD namespace is being done completely within
> the ccNSO WG and PDP with only comment opportunities by the rest of the
> stakeholders actually affected by the outcome, and in particular the
> Registrars and Registries who should be concerned about the unbalancing
> of the competitive environment this expansion could create if these new
> namespaces are not under the same rules and restrictions as gTLDs are
> and new gTLDs and IDN gTLDs will be.
>
> The ccNSO WG Fast Track initial report will be posted for comment in the
> next few weeks. I encourage anyone concerned as I am to be sure and look
> at this issue closely and comment. It may also be worthwhile for the RC
> as a whole to also comment.
>
> The Issue Report for ccNSO PDP itself on this topic can be commented on
> until 25 Jan 2008:
> http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19dec07.htm
>
>
> Tim
>
>
>
>   
I sat in on the ccTLD's IDN meeting at LA.

Some ccTLD operators will (reasonably in my opinion) want more than one 
non-ASCII label. India has some 18 or so scripts. Canada has two 
European scripts, and could reasonably seek at least two more (standard 
modern unified Canadian Syllabary for Nunavut and "roadless" northern 
Canada, and something with diacriticals for everything else that is 
Romanized, but not ASCII.

Some ccTLD operators have (unreasonably in my opinion) expressed an 
interest that every (or at least the .UK) label, be available to the 
(.UK operator) in every "major" (read Arabic) IDN form, on the theory 
that .UK business entities do business in Arabia.

That's obviously a mess. sizeof(iso3166) x sizeof(iso639) -- a wicked 
big number of labels.

If every label corresponds to a distinct registry with a potentially 
distinct registrar API and nexii rules ... well, you all can do the 
business case numbers for handling that.

If every label corresponds to an equivalence class of labels, and each 
equivalence class corresponds to a potentially distinct registrar API 
and nexii rules, say all 18 of India's hypothetical non-ASCII and 
possibly (incumbent operator cooperating) its ASCII .IN label, then 
IDNing the ccTLD label-space leaves us not much worse off when doing the 
numbers for adding a product to our product mixes than we are today.

But we have the long-standing issue, or non-issue, of repurposed ccTLDs, 
to which I'd add .US to Tim's list of rogue states, who's operators 
compete with the ICANN gTLDs. They play by different rules.

Eric