Chris,

Some questions .. not answers.

I believe that a document was mentioned in one of the meetings that explains the technical reasons as to why an IDN operator
can intentionally cause harm to another. Can you point me to this document? I am no expert in the area but if that is the case
then it seems to me that this would also mean that an operator can unintentionally (through human error) cause harm to another.
I would have thought that the avoidance of this (i.e., constraints on the operational space of a transaction) would have been a requirement
in the protocol design.

As for the the financial aspects (and this is just a wild thought). Would some sort of QoS-based model be of any use here? In other words, those who apply for IDNs
are told (in Terms and Conditions) that service performance is not guaranteed but that performance guarantees can
be provided for a fee. Those operators who are using the domain for cost free (or cheap) community services will be fine with this but
those who are providing for-profit services will want to ensure guaranteed performance to their users. As for IANA, it means providing
a two class service where queuing and load shedding (in extremely rare congestion cases) is done based on class. However their capacity
engineering can be done based on load from paid operators. This class system can probably be carried over in the other realms (nameserver change completion time,
redelegation etc.).

BTW I support both Lesley's and Jonathan's comments.

-Patrick





Jonathan Shea wrote:

Under the section *Financial Contributions*, only the following sentences are necessary

 • IDN ccTLDs should be similarly treated as ASCII ccTLDs.

 • Financial contributions should be kept voluntary and should not be a condition for IDN ccTLD delegations.

 

The other sentences (on cost recovery, etc) should not be included as they can be interpreted as we saying that a mandatory contribution based on cost recovery is acceptable and contradict the second dot point above.

 

 

Best regards,
Jonathan Shea
Chief Executive Officer
HKIRC / HKDNR
Ph: +852 2319 3821
Fax: +852 2319 0626

The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and then delete this e-mail entirely.  You must not retain, copy, distribute or use this e-mail for any other purpose not intended by this email or disclose any of its content to others.  The recipient should check the email and attachment for the presence of viruses.  The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.

 

Protect our environment - think before printing!

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ccnso-members@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-members@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chris Disspain
Sent: 2009年3月4日 05:32
To: ccNSO Council; ccNSO Members
Subject: [ccnso-members] agreements and money - idn cctlds

 

All,

 

Below are the relevant words from the GAC. Our goal would be for the council to pass a resolution tomorrow in similar or the same terms and present this as part of our report to the Board on Thursday morning.

 

If anyone has any comment please send to the list before the council meeting tomorrow.

 

Cheers,

 

Chris Disspain

CEO - auDA

au Domain Administration Ltd

ceo@auda.org.au

www.auda.org.au

 

Relationship between ICANN and IDN ccTLD Operator

 

·         IDN ccTLDs should be similarly treated as ASCII ccTLDs.

·         A documented relationship between ICANN and IDN ccTLD operators should be kept voluntary.

·         A documented relationship on the basis of the proposed “Documentation of Responsibilities”, either as it stands today or in a modified format, may be encouraged but should not be a condition for IDN ccTLD delegations.

·         As it has always been the case, it's in the best interest of ccTLDs operators and the entire IDN community to adhere to all relevant IETF standards including IDNA protocol, IDN Guidelines and commit to complying with future protocol updates. 

Financial Contributions

·         IDN ccTLDs should be similarly treated as ASCII ccTLDs.

·         Financial contributions should be calculated on a cost recovery basis. Full disclosure and breakdown of the costs involved in the IDN program would be desirable for better understanding of possible cost recovery models.

·         Financial contributions should be kept voluntary and should not be a condition for IDN ccTLD delegations.

·         Further information, from ICANN staff, on the different possible cost recovery mechanisms and concrete proposals would help advance positions on the subject.