February 2009 - Ccnso-council

[Olivier.Guillard@nic.fr: IANA WG conf call]
by Olivier.Guillard＠nic.fr March 4, 2009

March 4, 2009

Dear Councillor Colleagues, the IANA WG had an audio conf, with the following agenda : 1/ Mexico : 2/ Future of the IANA WG See below the report about that audio conf. I had no new input from anyone. Therefore : 1/ I now ask Gabi to withdraw the room that was reserved on monday morning, and I also cancel of course the IANA WG meeting : 2/ I will prepare one (or two) slides by monday to report about IANA WG activity since Paris meeting, and will recommend the closure of the IANA WG (unless anybody voices against, in that case please provide your arguments). Best, --- Olivier ----- Forwarded message from Olivier.Guillard(a)nic.fr ----- From: Olivier.Guillard(a)nic.fr Subject: IANA WG conf call To: ccnso-iana-wg(a)icann.org Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:12:27 +0100 Hi everyone, we just had our IANA WG call with Bart, Kim, Shinta and myself. Here is the result of our chat : 1/ Mexico : Shinta and Myself will not be in Mexico. I had no input from anyone about particular topics that one would like to see adressed by the IANA Working Group. However, there is a room reserved on Monday 2nd for the IANA WG (between 11:00 and 12:30). I will suggest to cancel this monday meeting, unless any IANA WG member ask (by tommorrow) for this room and slot to stay reserved. 2/ Future of the IANA WG I will draft one (two ?) slide about the activity in the IANA working group over the past few months. Considering precisely this activity Shinta and myself we beleive that the closure of the WG should be recommended : I will suggest that, unless anybody suggest otherwise (in that case, please provide your arguments). At the end of the day, that will be up to the ccNSO to decide about next step anyway. Additionally, note that since my term as a Councillor stops at the Mexico meeting, I will formally also resign from my position as a Chair of the IANA WG (unless a real -and unexpected- need was required temporarly to ensure a wished transition). Best, -- Olivier ----- End forwarded message ----- -- -- Olivier

2 4

briefing on IDNS
by Chris Disspain Feb. 28, 2009

Feb. 28, 2009

All, As you know we are due to start our council workshop on Sunday at 13.00. I would like to have an opportunity to brief you on IDN ccTLDs if at all possible and would appreciate it if we could gather at Noon rather than 13.00. I shall confirm that the same room is available or provide details of another one as soon as possible. Please confirm you can make it. Cheers, Chris Disspain CEO - auDA au Domain Administration Ltd <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> ceo(a)auda.org.au <http://www.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.

1 1

Minutes from Council call 16 February 2009
by Gabriella Schittek Feb. 27, 2009

Feb. 27, 2009

Dear Councillors, The minutes from the last Council call are attached. Please, can I have your comments/corrections by Wednesday, 4th March. Thanks, Gabi

1 0

Israel has joined the ccNSO
by Chris Disspain Feb. 27, 2009

Feb. 27, 2009

barux haba! בָּרוּךְ הַבָּא! Cheers, Chris Disspain Chair – ccNSO Council.

1 0

Resolution Council on GNSO positions re timing of processes.
by Gabriella Schittek Feb. 27, 2009

Feb. 27, 2009

Dear all, This is just to inform you that the resolution on the GNSO position regarding the timing of processes was passed. All votes received until the 26th February 00.00 UTC were taken into account. 13 votes were received in total, 11 in favour, 2 abstentions. In favour: .au, .cl, .cz, ,jp, .kr, .pr, .sd, .tt, .uk, .us, Becky Burr. Abstentions: .fr, .mx The resolution will be sent to Avri Doria later today and posted on our website. Many thanks, Gabi From: owner-ccnso-council(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chris Disspain Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 1:45 AM To: ccNSO Council Subject: [ccnso-council] Resolution Council on GNSO positions re timing of processes. All, Here is the slightly amended resolution. Please now vote on the list. Councillors may vote in favour, against or may abstain. "Resolution ccNSO Council 19 February 2009 on timing of the launch of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track and new IDN gTLD process. Background In 2007 the ccNSO, and the ICANN community generally, discussed the possibility of using an interim approach to IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes to meet near-term demands and to gain experience with mechanisms for the selection and delegation of IDN ccTLDs that would also inform a policy development process aimed at creating an overall policy on IDN ccTLDs. To that end in November 2007 the ICANN Board requested the chairs of the ALAC, ccNSO , GAC, GNSO and SSAC to establish a working group (the IDNC Working Group) to develop and report on feasible methods, if any, that would enable the introduction, in a timely manner and in a manner that ensures the continued security and stability of the Internet, of a limited number of IDN ccTLDs while the overall policy is being developed. After extensive community comment, the IDNC Working Group submitted its final report to the ICANN Board. In May 2008 the Board directed ICANN staff to post the IDNC WG final report for public comments, commence work on implementation issues in consultation with relevant stakeholders and submit a detailed implementation plan including a list of any outstanding issues to the Board in advance of the ICANN Cairo meeting in November 2008. Resolution The ccNSO Council notes that the GNSO Council submitted substantive comments on the IDNC WG final report. Included in those comments was a statement that "the introduction of IDN gTLDs or IDN ccTLDs should not be delayed because of lack of readiness of one category, but if they are not introduced at the same time, steps should be taken so that neither category is advantaged or disadvantaged, and procedures should be developed to avoid possible conflicts" (GNSO Council submission, 15 August 2008). The ccNSO Council also notes the GNSO Council resolution of 8 January 2009, which states that the GNSO Council strongly believes that neither the new gTLD nor ccTLD fast track process should result in IDN TLDs being entered into the root before the other unless both the GNSO and ccNSO so agree. The ccNSO Council notes the apparent change in the view of the GNSO regarding the timing of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track and the new IDN gTLD process. 'Prior to stating the ccNSO Council position, we would welcome a discussion with the GNSO Council to gain a better understanding of the apparent change in view." Cheers, Chris Disspain CEO - auDA au Domain Administration Ltd ceo(a)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. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccnso-council(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On > Behalf Of lesley(a)nominet.org.uk > Sent: Thursday, 19 February 2009 02:09 > To: Chris Disspain > Cc: 'Bart Boswinkel'; 'ccNSO Council'; owner-ccnso-council(a)icann.org > Subject: RE: [ccnso-council] Resolution Council on GNSO positions re timing of > processes. > > > Hi Chris, > > 3 very minor amendments proposed: > > owner-ccnso-council(a)icann.org wrote on 18/02/2009 09:13:08: > <...> > > Resolution > > The ccNSO Council notes that the GNSO Council submitted substantive > > comments on the IDNC WG final report. Included in those comments > > add 'was' > > > a > > statement that ?the introduction of IDN gTLDs or IDN ccTLDs should > > not be delayed because of lack of readiness of one category, > > <....> > > > The ccNSO Council notes the apparent change in the view on > > Should be 'of' > > > the GNSO > > regarding the timing of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track and the new IDN > > gTLD process, > > Suggest full stop here. > > > and prior to stating its position, would welcome a > > discussion with the GNSO Council to gain a better understanding of > > the apparent change in view. > > Suggest replace with: > 'Prior to stating the ccNSO Council position, we .... > > (Apologies if I'm being picky). > > Kind regards, > Lesley >

1 0

Re: [ccnso-council] Resolution Council on GNSO positions re timing of processes.
by ceo＠auda.org.au Feb. 27, 2009

Feb. 27, 2009

Olivier, You may have misunderstood. There is nothing in the resolution to indicate that we support delaying the process. Perhaps you could explain why you think it does. Cheers, Chris Disspain CEO - auDA Sent from my phone On 27/02/2009, at 0:10, Olivier Guillard / AFNIC <Olivier.Guillard(a)nic.fr > wrote: > Considering the hudge energy deployed by ccs in the area > and in particular the IDNc Working Group : > > http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccnso-minutes-council-call-25jun08.pdf > > Considering the process that was implemented for consultation > and the path that the fast track report has followed. > > Adding that I don't beleive that it would be a good signal to send > that the ccNSO supports delaying the process of introducing IDN TLD. > > I abstain on this resolution. > > > Best > > --- > Olivier > > > le lundi 23 février à 09 H 42 , Olivier Guillard / AFNIC a ecrit : >> Hi Chris, >> >> before casting a ballot I'll look at this more in depth. >> >> I'm just wondering about two things on that : >> >> 1/ First, this is the board that has [directed the staff to] >> organise the consultation : >> >> "In May 2008 the Board directed ICANN staff to post the >> IDNC WG final...." >> >> Therefore, I don't see why it should be to the ccNSO Council >> to "notes the apparent change in the view of the GNSO". >> >> A priori, it's in the board hands now, and I'm not very sure >> that's it's a good idea to bypass the ICANN board competence. >> now. >> >> 2/ I'm a bit surprised to see that the ccNSO needs now a formal >> resolution to say that the ccNSO is happy to talk with the >> GNSO : "we would welcome a discussion with the GNSO Council >> to gain a better understanding of the apparent change in view." >> >> Not sure that passing a formal resolution for that is the >> right signal to send. >> >> Any input/view from the board on that ? Any additional element ? >> >> Best, >> >> --- >> Olivier >> >> >> >> >> >> le jeudi 19 février à 11 H 45 , Chris Disspain a ecrit : >>> All, >>> >>> Here is the slightly amended resolution. Please now vote on the >>> list. >>> Councillors may vote in favour, against or may abstain. >>> >>> "Resolution ccNSO Council 19 February 2009 on timing of the >>> launch of the >>> IDN ccTLD Fast Track and new IDN gTLD process. >>> Background >>> >>> In 2007 the ccNSO, and the ICANN community generally, discussed the >>> possibility of using an interim approach to IDN ccTLDs associated >>> with the >>> ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes to meet near-term demands and to gain >>> experience with mechanisms for the selection and delegation of IDN >>> ccTLDs >>> that would also inform a policy development process aimed at >>> creating an >>> overall policy on IDN ccTLDs. >>> >>> To that end in November 2007 the ICANN Board requested the chairs >>> of the >>> ALAC, ccNSO , GAC, GNSO and SSAC to establish a working group (the >>> IDNC >>> Working Group) to develop and report on feasible methods, if any, >>> that >>> would enable the introduction, in a timely manner and in a manner >>> that >>> ensures the continued security and stability of the Internet, of a >>> limited >>> number of IDN ccTLDs while the overall policy is being developed. >>> >>> After extensive community comment, the IDNC Working Group >>> submitted its >>> final report to the ICANN Board. >>> >>> In May 2008 the Board directed ICANN staff to post the IDNC WG final >>> report for public comments, commence work on implementation issues >>> in >>> consultation with relevant stakeholders and submit a detailed >>> implementation plan including a list of any outstanding issues to >>> the >>> Board in advance of the ICANN Cairo meeting in November 2008. >>> >>> Resolution >>> The ccNSO Council notes that the GNSO Council submitted substantive >>> comments on the IDNC WG final report. Included in those comments >>> was a >>> statement that the introduction of IDN gTLDs or IDN ccTLDs shou >>> ld not be >>> delayed because of lack of readiness of one category, but if they >>> are not >>> introduced at the same time, steps should be taken so that neither >>> category is advantaged or disadvantaged, and procedures should be >>> developed to avoid possible conflicts (GNSO Council submission, >>> 15 August >>> 2008). >>> >>> The ccNSO Council also notes the GNSO Council resolution of 8 >>> January >>> 2009, which states that the GNSO Council strongly believes that >>> neither >>> the new gTLD nor ccTLD fast track process should result in IDN >>> TLDs being >>> entered into the root before the other unless both the GNSO and >>> ccNSO so >>> agree. >>> >>> The ccNSO Council notes the apparent change in the view of the GNSO >>> regarding the timing of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track and the new IDN >>> gTLD >>> process. 'Prior to stating the ccNSO Council position, we would >>> welcome a >>> discussion with the GNSO Council to gain a better understanding of >>> the >>> apparent change in view." >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> >>> Chris Disspain >>> CEO - auDA >>> au Domain Administration Ltd >>> ceo(a)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. >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-ccnso-council(a)icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On >>>> Behalf Of lesley(a)nominet.org.uk >>>> Sent: Thursday, 19 February 2009 02:09 >>>> To: Chris Disspain >>>> Cc: 'Bart Boswinkel'; 'ccNSO Council'; owner-ccnso- >>>> council(a)icann.org >>>> Subject: RE: [ccnso-council] Resolution Council on GNSO positions >>>> re >>> timing of >>>> processes. >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Chris, >>>> >>>> 3 very minor amendments proposed: >>>> >>>> owner-ccnso-council(a)icann.org wrote on 18/02/2009 09:13:08: >>>> <...> >>>>> Resolution >>>>> The ccNSO Council notes that the GNSO Council submitted >>>>> substantive >>>>> comments on the IDNC WG final report. Included in those comments >>>> >>>> add 'was' >>>> >>>>> a >>>>> statement that ?the introduction of IDN gTLDs or IDN ccTLDs should >>>>> not be delayed because of lack of readiness of one category, >>>> >>>> <....> >>>> >>>>> The ccNSO Council notes the apparent change in the view on >>>> >>>> Should be 'of' >>>> >>>>> the GNSO >>>>> regarding the timing of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track and the new IDN >>>>> gTLD process, >>>> >>>> Suggest full stop here. >>>> >>>>> and prior to stating its position, would welcome a >>>>> discussion with the GNSO Council to gain a better understanding of >>>>> the apparent change in view. >>>> >>>> Suggest replace with: >>>> 'Prior to stating the ccNSO Council position, we .... >>>> >>>> (Apologies if I'm being picky). >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> Lesley >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> Olivier > > -- > Olivier

4 3

Participation WG Final Report
by lesley＠nominet.org.uk Feb. 26, 2009

Feb. 26, 2009

Hi Chris, The final report of the Participation working group is attached and it would be appreciated if this could be added to the Council agenda for Mexico. I do hope that the Council will be able to agree with the recommendations in sections 4.1-4.5 and the closure of the WG recommended in the final section. If there are any questions, I will be happy to try to answer them. Regards, Lesley

1 0

[[dns-operations] Interim Trust Anchor Repository]
by Olivier Guillard / AFNIC Feb. 26, 2009

Feb. 26, 2009

FYI ----- Forwarded message from David Conrad <drc(a)virtualized.org> ----- From: David Conrad <drc(a)virtualized.org> Subject: Re: [dns-operations] Interim Trust Anchor Repository Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 07:24:37 -1000 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) Hi, I'm no longer an IANA staff member (sad but true). Speaking personally, I'd think it would probably be appropriate for Kim (as Root Zone Services Manager) and Barbara (as IANA GM) to sign the key. Regards, -drc ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Olivier

1 0

Resolution Council on GNSO positions re timing of processes.
by Bart Boswinkel Feb. 26, 2009

Feb. 26, 2009

Dear all, Per Council call yesterday a proposed resolution of the ccNSO Council regarding the position of the GNSO on the launch of the Fast Track and new IDN gTLD process. In order to inform the GNSO and others in time, could you be so kind to vote ( in favour, abstain, or against) by Friday 20 November 2009, noon UTC. Thanks, and kind regards, Bart Resolution ---------------- Resolution ccNSO Council 16 February 2009 on timing of the launch of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track and new IDN gTLD process. Background In June 2007 the ICANN Board considered that the ICANN community is discussing the details involved in using an interim approach to IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes to meet near-term demands and to gain experience with mechanisms for selection and authorization of such TLDs that can inform a policy development process aimed at creating an overall policy. To that end the Board requested the chairs of the ALAC, ccNSO , GAC, GNSO and SSAC in November 2007 to establish a working group to develop and report on feasible methods, if any, that would enable the introduction, in a timely manner and in a manner that ensures the continued security and stability of the Internet, of a limited number of non-contentious IDN ccTLDs while the overall policy is being developed. The "IDNC Working Group" developed, after extensive community consultation, a final report on feasible methods for timely (fast-track) introduction of a limited number of IDN ccTLDs associated with ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes. At the ICANN meeting in Paris (May 2008), the Board directed staff to post the IDNC WG final report for public comments, commence work on implementation issues in consultation with relevant stakeholders; and submit a detailed implementation report including a list of any outstanding issues to the Board in advance of the ICANN Cairo meeting in November 2008. Resolution The ccNSO Council notes the GNSO Council comment ( submitted 15 August 2008) on the IDNC WG final report, which, among others, includes the statement that (paraphrased) in principle the introduction of IDN-labeled gTLDs or ccTLDs should not be delayed because of lack of readiness of one category. The ccNSO Council also notes the GNSO Council resolution of 8 January 2009, which, among others, states that the GNSO Council strongly believes that neither the new gTLD or ccTLD fast track process should result in IDN TLDs in the root before the other unless both the GNSO and ccNSO so agree. The ccNSO Council notes the change in the statements regarding the timing of the Fast Track and the new IDN gTLD process, and would welcome a meeting with the GNSO Council at the ICANN meeting in Mexico to gain a better understanding of the changed position, before the ccNSO Council will state its views on the matter itself. .

11 16

FW: [ccnso-council] Resolution Council on GNSO positions re timing of processes.
by Gabriella Schittek Feb. 26, 2009

Feb. 26, 2009

Dear Councillors, This is just a reminder to vote on the proposed resolution on the GNSO position regarding the timing of the IDN implementation process - see below. Please, can I have your votes until Thursday, 26th February 2009. Thanks, Gabi From: owner-ccnso-council(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chris Disspain Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 1:45 AM To: ccNSO Council Subject: [ccnso-council] Resolution Council on GNSO positions re timing of processes. All, Here is the slightly amended resolution. Please now vote on the list. Councillors may vote in favour, against or may abstain. "Resolution ccNSO Council 19 February 2009 on timing of the launch of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track and new IDN gTLD process. Background In 2007 the ccNSO, and the ICANN community generally, discussed the possibility of using an interim approach to IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes to meet near-term demands and to gain experience with mechanisms for the selection and delegation of IDN ccTLDs that would also inform a policy development process aimed at creating an overall policy on IDN ccTLDs. To that end in November 2007 the ICANN Board requested the chairs of the ALAC, ccNSO , GAC, GNSO and SSAC to establish a working group (the IDNC Working Group) to develop and report on feasible methods, if any, that would enable the introduction, in a timely manner and in a manner that ensures the continued security and stability of the Internet, of a limited number of IDN ccTLDs while the overall policy is being developed. After extensive community comment, the IDNC Working Group submitted its final report to the ICANN Board. In May 2008 the Board directed ICANN staff to post the IDNC WG final report for public comments, commence work on implementation issues in consultation with relevant stakeholders and submit a detailed implementation plan including a list of any outstanding issues to the Board in advance of the ICANN Cairo meeting in November 2008. Resolution The ccNSO Council notes that the GNSO Council submitted substantive comments on the IDNC WG final report. Included in those comments was a statement that "the introduction of IDN gTLDs or IDN ccTLDs should not be delayed because of lack of readiness of one category, but if they are not introduced at the same time, steps should be taken so that neither category is advantaged or disadvantaged, and procedures should be developed to avoid possible conflicts" (GNSO Council submission, 15 August 2008). The ccNSO Council also notes the GNSO Council resolution of 8 January 2009, which states that the GNSO Council strongly believes that neither the new gTLD nor ccTLD fast track process should result in IDN TLDs being entered into the root before the other unless both the GNSO and ccNSO so agree. The ccNSO Council notes the apparent change in the view of the GNSO regarding the timing of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track and the new IDN gTLD process. 'Prior to stating the ccNSO Council position, we would welcome a discussion with the GNSO Council to gain a better understanding of the apparent change in view." Cheers, Chris Disspain CEO - auDA au Domain Administration Ltd ceo(a)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. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccnso-council(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On > Behalf Of lesley(a)nominet.org.uk > Sent: Thursday, 19 February 2009 02:09 > To: Chris Disspain > Cc: 'Bart Boswinkel'; 'ccNSO Council'; owner-ccnso-council(a)icann.org > Subject: RE: [ccnso-council] Resolution Council on GNSO positions re timing of > processes. > > > Hi Chris, > > 3 very minor amendments proposed: > > owner-ccnso-council(a)icann.org wrote on 18/02/2009 09:13:08: > <...> > > Resolution > > The ccNSO Council notes that the GNSO Council submitted substantive > > comments on the IDNC WG final report. Included in those comments > > add 'was' > > > a > > statement that ?the introduction of IDN gTLDs or IDN ccTLDs should > > not be delayed because of lack of readiness of one category, > > <....> > > > The ccNSO Council notes the apparent change in the view on > > Should be 'of' > > > the GNSO > > regarding the timing of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track and the new IDN > > gTLD process, > > Suggest full stop here. > > > and prior to stating its position, would welcome a > > discussion with the GNSO Council to gain a better understanding of > > the apparent change in view. > > Suggest replace with: > 'Prior to stating the ccNSO Council position, we .... > > (Apologies if I'm being picky). > > Kind regards, > Lesley >

4 3