Resolution Council on GNSO positions re timing of processes.
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. .
Bart, I think this needs a little work before we vote on it. I'll call you this morning your time to discuss. Meanwhile would Council members please not send in a vote. Cheers, Chris Disspain CEO - auDA au Domain Administration Ltd <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> ceo@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. From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bart Boswinkel Sent: Wednesday, 18 February 2009 06:52 To: ccNSO Council Subject: [ccnso-council] Resolution Council on GNSO positions re timing of processes. 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. .
All, I have now discussed the proposed resolution with Bart and set it out below. I think that it correctly reflects the discussion we had on our call on Monday. I will formally put the resolution to the Council for a list vote tomorrow unless anyone wishes to submit suggested amendments. 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 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 on the GNSO regarding the timing of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track and the new IDN gTLD process, 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. Cheers, Chris Disspain CEO - auDA au Domain Administration Ltd <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> ceo@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. From: Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo@auda.org.au] Sent: Wednesday, 18 February 2009 13:36 To: 'Bart Boswinkel'; 'ccNSO Council' Subject: RE: [ccnso-council] Resolution Council on GNSO positions re timing of processes. Bart, I think this needs a little work before we vote on it. I'll call you this morning your time to discuss. Meanwhile would Council members please not send in a vote. Cheers, Chris Disspain CEO - auDA au Domain Administration Ltd <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> ceo@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. From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bart Boswinkel Sent: Wednesday, 18 February 2009 06:52 To: ccNSO Council Subject: [ccnso-council] Resolution Council on GNSO positions re timing of processes. 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. .
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
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
In favour. Chris Disspain CEO - auDA au Domain Administration Ltd <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> ceo@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. From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chris Disspain Sent: Thursday, 19 February 2009 11:45 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@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
In favour. -Patrick Hosein Chris Disspain wrote:
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
In Favor. Mohamed El Bashir
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
In Favor. Regards, Oscar Moreno In Favor.
Mohamed El Bashir
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
Oscar Moreno CEO & Founder nic.pr
In favor. Patricio Chris Disspain wrote:
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
In favour. Regards, Lesley ps. suggest you remove the start quote mark that is in front of Prior though. owner-ccnso-council@icann.org wrote on 19/02/2009 00:45:01: <...>
'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."
In favor Hiro On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 11:45:01 +1100 (EST) "Chris Disspain" <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
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 $BEU(Bhe introduction of IDN gTLDs or IDN ccTLDs should not be delayed because of lack of readiness of one category, but if they are not introduced at the same time, steps should be taken so that neither category is advantaged or disadvantaged, and procedures should be developed to avoid possible conflicts$BG(B(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
In favor Mohamed
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 11:45:01 +1100 (EST) "Chris Disspain" <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
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 $BEU(Bhe introduction of IDN gTLDs or IDN ccTLDs should not be delayed because of lack of readiness of one category, but if they are not introduced at the same time, steps should be taken so that neither category is advantaged or disadvantaged, and procedures should be developed to avoid possible conflicts$BG(B(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
In favor of the proposed resolution. Keith From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chris Disspain Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 7:45 PM 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@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
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 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
-- Olivier
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 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
-- Olivier
-- Olivier
Bart, Apologies that I could not attend this call due to coincidental international travel. However, I would like to note that the text only indicates that the Council "notes" items or would welcome other items. The text does not show what the Council actually resolved. Could you please clarify? Regards, Paulos ====================== Dr Paulos B Nyirenda .mw ccTLD http://www.registrar.mw On 17 Feb 2009 at 11:52, Bart Boswinkel wrote:
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.
.
participants (11)
-
Bart Boswinkel -
Chris Disspain -
Dr Paulos Nyirenda -
Drazek, Keith -
HiroHOTTA -
lesley＠nominet.org.uk -
mbashir＠mbash.net -
Olivier Guillard / AFNIC -
Oscar Moreno -
Patricio Poblete -
TTNIC Admin