Dear Colleagues: I send to you this e-mail received from Milton Mueller inrelation with joint meeting in Delhi, and information refered below.Carlos Dionisio Aguirre.----- Original Message -----From: Milton L MuellerTo: NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDUSent: Friday, February 29, 2008 1:19 PMSubject: Re: Meeting notes from ALAC-NCUC joint meeting in New DelhiRobin, Norbert and all:Reading these notes, I think we need to be much clearer with ALAC on whatour policy concerns are with respect to fast-track IDN ccTLDs.There are two main concerns:1) different standards for ccNSO-created IDN TLDs and gNSO-created IDN TLDs.This creates a discriminatory policy environment which might favor one groupover the other, or could be gamed by clever participants.2) competition policy concerns about reinforcing national monopolyregistries by giving them one or more new IDNs in advance of new entrantsinto the market.I did not see those concerns expressed in the ALAC meeting. Hope we can beclearer about this in the future. The first concern has pretty big namespace management implications; Avri Doria has expressed a lot of concernabout this and I am not sure what her thinking is about how things aregoing. the second issue is also very important, although those concerns wereaddressed somewhat by the estimate that country code IDNs might actuallytake longer to be assigned than generic IDNs. (Why that would be I don'tknow).Milton MuellerProfessor, Syracuse University School of Information StudiesXS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology------------------------------Internet Governance Project:http://internetgovernance.orgFrom: Non-Commercial User Constituency[mailto:NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Robin GrossSent: Monday, February 18, 2008 12:57 PMTo: NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDUSubject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Meeting notes from ALAC-NCUC joint meeting in NewDelhiMeeting notes from ALAC-NCUC joint meeting in New Delhi (provided by Nick Aston Hart of ICANN) https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?summary_minutes_12_february_2008_ncSumma... Minutes 12 February 2008 NCALAC/NCUC Joint Meeting12 February 2008Summary MinutesNOTE: Meeting Minutes are in draft form until adopted by the CommitteePresent (ALAC): C Aguirre, J Salgueiro, A Greenberg, V Cretu, X Hong, CLangdon-Orr, B Brendler, V Scartezini, I Aizu, W Ludwig, A MuehlbergPresent (NCUC): N Klein, R Gross,Observers: J Morris, E Leibovitch, X Hong, D FarrarThe Meeting was brought to order at 16:35C Aguirre noted that Domain Tasting was a major issue in the GNSO andsuggested that we could start with that issue.R Gross noted that it was not expected that a GNSO council vote would beheld on the issue during New Delhi, though it was not beyond possibility.A Greenberg provided a brief historical overview of Domain Tasting, currentregistry proposals related to the AGP, and ICANN activities to date, withparticular focus on the latest funnel proposals. He noted that there seemedto be general consensus that Domain Tasting was not beneficial, but therewas not consensus on what to do about it.A Liebovitch reinforced the point that NARALO agreed strongly with theperspective that Domain Tasting was harmful.D Farrar endorsed the comments about the AGP. It was a well-intentionedpolicy which had enormous unintended consequences. Getting rid of the AGPseems more useful than attempting to simply attach more rules to avoid thebad effects.R Gross said that NCUC believes that the AGP needs to be curtailed, as doother constituencies, but there is less clarity on what to do about it. Itis thought that complete elimination seems politically impossible due toregistrar and registry opposition.A number of comments were received suggesting that a politically possibleresult that helped resolve the problem was better than purity of purposewith no resolution.C Aguirre asked a question about the NCUC's views on Domain Tasting withrespect to trademark protection.R Gross noted that originally NCUC had viewed the elimination of the AGP asa benefit to trademark holders but over time had taken the view that theother aspects of the issue were much more important.D Farrar noted that he was concerned about the use of the grace period byregistrars to register a name searched for by a potential customer beforethe customer could complete the registration.E Leibovitch asked what the defense of the AGP from the NCUC's perspectivewas.R Gross said that she didn't believe that the NCUC disagreed with theperspective that the AGP should be eliminated.A Muehlberg said she believed that there was a lot of agreement between theAt-Large and the NCUC on Domain Tasting.C Aguirre wondered if it was possible to have a joint position on this andasked if the Chair of the GNSO Council wished to speak on the matter.A Greenberg noted the reference to D Farrar's comment and that the NSIimplementation is so outrageous it should never had seen the light of day.A Doria noted that she was unclear what question she had been asked toanswer.R Gross asked A Doria if there would be a vote on Domain Tasting.A Doria replied that she thinks probably not.R Gross noted that in her experience that the progress on Domain Tasting wasfar faster than on any previous issue.C Aguirre hoped that we could in future avoid disagreements by continuing tomeet and discuss matters regularly.N Klein suggested a discussion of the GNSO Improvements.X Hong asked what the view of the NCUC was on Fast Track IDN introduction.R Gross said the introduction of IDN TLDs was a wonderful thing but therewas some NCUC concern about governmental oversight and control.N Klein noted that he thought there would not be large numbers of newregistrations for IDN TLDs but just a few. It would be a problem if therewere an arbitrary limit of only one TLD per country as some countries havemore than one official language and therefore more than one script ispossible.X Hong welcomed the positive view expressed.R Gross said that the idea that more people could get online was apersuasive argument for IDN TLDs.X Hong reminded everyone that the point of the fast track process was tomove forward with widely recognised TLDs that were in clear demand. Shenoted that at the IDNC meeting C Disspain said that in a survey of 224 ccTLDmanagers, only 24 wanted to have an IDN TLD in the fast track.A Muehlberg noted that it was not practical to try and resolve every issuein advance - moving forward and trying a few TLDs was really worthwhile andthen it was possible to evaluate whether application-level issues must betaken into account before further IDN TLD implementations.C Aguirre and C Langdon-Orr thanked all for participating.The meeting was adjourned at 17:32 Carlos Dionisio Aguirre abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.sitioderecho.com.ar www.densi.com.ar _________________________________________________________________ ¿Aburrido? Ingresá ya y divertite como nunca en MSN Juegos. http://juegos.ar.msn.com/