Re: [ccnso-council] agreements and money - idn cctlds
I would support a somewhat clearer statement about complying with the technical standard. Of course, talk (with cc operators or government) is better than precipitous action. But I think it is entirely legitimate for ICANN to reserve the right to act in the event that someone's failure to comply with IDNA is creating stability or security issues that can't be resolved in a timely fashion. Seems to me that a reservation by ICANN avoids the "legal and political" issues cited by Bill Dee. ________________________________ From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org To: ccNSO Council ; ccNSO Members Sent: Tue Mar 03 16:31:40 2009 Subject: [ccnso-council] 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 <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> www.auda.org.au <http://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.
I rather liked Chris's suggestion of adding this statement/commitment at the application stage. Regards, Lesley owner-ccnso-council@icann.org wrote on 03/03/2009 23:18:02:
I would support a somewhat clearer statement about complying with the technical standard. Of course, talk (with cc operators or government) is better than precipitous action. But I think it is entirely legitimate for ICANN to reserve the right to act in the event that someone's failure to comply with IDNA is creating stability or security issues that can't be resolved in a timely fashion.
Seems to me that a reservation by ICANN avoids the "legal and political" issues cited by Bill Dee. From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org To: ccNSO Council ; ccNSO Members Sent: Tue Mar 03 16:31:40 2009 Subject: [ccnso-council] 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.
I would support a somewhat clearer statement about complying with the technical standard.
mmmh. This issue is interesting but not to the ccnso to push for that, unless we would be able to explain what means "complying with the technical standard" as cc operators. We can provide views or strengthen debates on particular technical issues (there is a WG for that) but "complying with technical standard" does not sound wise to me. Best --- Olivier le mardi 03 mars à 18 H 18 , Burr, Becky a ecrit :
I would support a somewhat clearer statement about complying with the technical standard. Of course, talk (with cc operators or government) is better than precipitous action. But I think it is entirely legitimate for ICANN to reserve the right to act in the event that someone's failure to comply with IDNA is creating stability or security issues that can't be resolved in a timely fashion.
Seems to me that a reservation by ICANN avoids the "legal and political" issues cited by Bill Dee.
________________________________
From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org To: ccNSO Council ; ccNSO Members Sent: Tue Mar 03 16:31:40 2009 Subject: [ccnso-council] 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 <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>
www.auda.org.au <http://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.
-- Olivier
participants (3)
-
Burr, Becky -
lesley＠nominet.org.uk -
Olivier Guillard / AFNIC