Jian
The current draft of the resolution, and the one which a number
of council members have already voted on, states in the last paragraph;
‘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.’
The intention of using those words was to prompt the GNSO into
having a meeting with us in Mexico to discuss the situation.
I’m not clear what your suggested amendment achieves. Given that
9 councillors have already voted in favour of the resolution, I would prefer
not to change it at this late stage. However, if another Councillor would like
second your proposed change of wording, I will put that to a vote.
Cheers,
Chris Disspain
CEO - auDA
au Domain Administration Ltd
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.
From: zhangjian [mailto:zhangjian@cnnic.cn]
Sent: Saturday, 21 February 2009 03:52
To: 'Chris Disspain'; 'ccNSO Council'
Subject: 答复: [ccnso-council] Resolution Council on GNSO positions
re timing of processes.
Dear Chris and everybody:
Would we just modify the last sentence to be like this:
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. ccNSO would like to
understand the significant causes that lead to the apparent change in view.
In this way, we could let them let us what’s their major concerns are first. then we can discuss it later
Best regards
Jian ZHang
发件人: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org
[mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] 代表 Chris Disspain
发送时间: 2009年2月19日 8:45
收件人: ccNSO Council
主题:
[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. ccNSO would like to understand the significant
causes that lead to the apparent change in view.
Cheers,
Chris Disspain
CEO - auDA
au Domain Administration Ltd
ceo@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@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org]
On
> Behalf Of lesley@nominet.org.uk
> Sent: Thursday, 19 February 2009 02:09
> To: Chris Disspain
> Cc: 'Bart Boswinkel'; 'ccNSO Council'; owner-ccnso-council@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@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
>