In favor.

Keith

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, 26^th February 2009.

Thanks,

Gabi

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@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
>