Re: [ccnso-council] Resolution Council on GNSO positions re timing of processes.
Olivier, You may have misunderstood. There is nothing in the resolution to indicate that we support delaying the process. Perhaps you could explain why you think it does. Cheers, Chris Disspain CEO - auDA Sent from my phone On 27/02/2009, at 0:10, Olivier Guillard / AFNIC <Olivier.Guillard@nic.fr
wrote:
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 shou ld 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
Thanks Chris le vendredi 27 février à 00 H 58 , ceo@auda.org.au a ecrit :
Olivier,
You may have misunderstood.
to misunderstand or to be misunderstood, that is the question... (:
There is nothing in the resolution to indicate that we support delaying the process.
Perhaps you could explain why you think it does.
Yup. IMHO, the issue is in board's hands :
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.
I don't think that this is to us to "notes the apparent change in the view of the GNSO" :
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.
The risk would be that we give the impression to support the view of requiring more time, debates and talk on that, and not only about when to implement IDN TLDs, but even discussions on which steps to implement it. There is a clear chanel and process to debate about those issues, I don't see the need of a formal resolution to indicate "we want to talk prior to stating the ccNSO Council position". I don't say we shouldn't "talk", I say that a formal resolution for that sounds a bit funny to me. Passing this, the risk is be suspected to support the slowing down of everything, (one could say : "to move forward, we now wait until the ccNSO has stated a position", which will happen once the ccNSO will have been able "to talk". Thanks for your consideration asking me more about it, seeing the votes of my other honourable colleagues, I don't think that my abstention will be so critical. I'm not the most impacted to be honnest, so take my abstension as a view more than as an advice. Best, --- Olivier
Cheers,
Chris Disspain CEO - auDA Sent from my phone
On 27/02/2009, at 0:10, Olivier Guillard / AFNIC <Olivier.Guillard@nic.fr
wrote:
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 shou ld 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
-- Olivier
I share Olivier's concerns. I think that we are attracting unwanted attention to this topic. If we want to hear a clarification from GNSO, we could get it by "diplomatic" ways, if we want to disassociate both issues (new gTLDs and cc IDNs), we could approach them and say so. By signing this resolution we are establishing a rough start in any further approach with them. If you need my vote, please accept my abstention. Cheers, Oscar
-----Original Message----- From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Olivier Guillard / AFNIC Sent: Jueves, 26 de Febrero de 2009 09:24 a.m. To: ceo@auda.org.au Cc: Olivier Guillard / AFNIC; ccNSO Council Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Resolution Council on GNSO positions re timing of processes.
Thanks Chris
le vendredi 27 février à 00 H 58 , ceo@auda.org.au a ecrit :
Olivier,
You may have misunderstood.
to misunderstand or to be misunderstood, that is the question... (:
There is nothing in the resolution to indicate that we support delaying the process.
Perhaps you could explain why you think it does.
Yup.
IMHO, the issue is in board's hands :
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.
I don't think that this is to us to "notes the apparent change in the view of the GNSO" :
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.
The risk would be that we give the impression to support the view of requiring more time, debates and talk on that, and not only about when to implement IDN TLDs, but even discussions on which steps to implement it.
There is a clear chanel and process to debate about those issues, I don't see the need of a formal resolution to indicate "we want to talk prior to stating the ccNSO Council position".
I don't say we shouldn't "talk", I say that a formal resolution for that sounds a bit funny to me.
Passing this, the risk is be suspected to support the slowing down of everything, (one could say : "to move forward, we now wait until the ccNSO has stated a position", which will happen once the ccNSO will have been able "to talk".
Thanks for your consideration asking me more about it, seeing the votes of my other honourable colleagues, I don't think that my abstention will be so critical.
I'm not the most impacted to be honnest, so take my abstension as a view more than as an advice.
Best,
--- Olivier
Cheers,
Chris Disspain CEO - auDA Sent from my phone
On 27/02/2009, at 0:10, Olivier Guillard / AFNIC <Olivier.Guillard@nic.fr
wrote:
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 shou ld 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
-- Olivier
I have already expressed my discomfort and reservations on this resolution and agree with sentiments from Olivier and Oscar. I hence abstain on this resolution vote. Regards Paulos ====================== Dr Paulos B Nyirenda .mw ccTLD http://www.registrar.mw On 26 Feb 2009 at 11:40, Oscar A. Robles-Garay wrote:
I share Olivier's concerns. I think that we are attracting unwanted attention to this topic.
If we want to hear a clarification from GNSO, we could get it by "diplomatic" ways, if we want to disassociate both issues (new gTLDs and cc IDNs), we could approach them and say so. By signing this resolution we are establishing a rough start in any further approach with them.
If you need my vote, please accept my abstention.
Cheers, Oscar
-----Original Message----- From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Olivier Guillard / AFNIC Sent: Jueves, 26 de Febrero de 2009 09:24 a.m. To: ceo@auda.org.au Cc: Olivier Guillard / AFNIC; ccNSO Council Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Resolution Council on GNSO positions re timing of processes.
Thanks Chris
le vendredi 27 février à 00 H 58 , ceo@auda.org.au a ecrit :
Olivier,
You may have misunderstood.
to misunderstand or to be misunderstood, that is the question... (:
There is nothing in the resolution to indicate that we support delaying the process.
Perhaps you could explain why you think it does.
Yup.
IMHO, the issue is in board's hands :
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.
I don't think that this is to us to "notes the apparent change in the view of the GNSO" :
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.
The risk would be that we give the impression to support the view of requiring more time, debates and talk on that, and not only about when to implement IDN TLDs, but even discussions on which steps to implement it.
There is a clear chanel and process to debate about those issues, I don't see the need of a formal resolution to indicate "we want to talk prior to stating the ccNSO Council position".
I don't say we shouldn't "talk", I say that a formal resolution for that sounds a bit funny to me.
Passing this, the risk is be suspected to support the slowing down of everything, (one could say : "to move forward, we now wait until the ccNSO has stated a position", which will happen once the ccNSO will have been able "to talk".
Thanks for your consideration asking me more about it, seeing the votes of my other honourable colleagues, I don't think that my abstention will be so critical.
I'm not the most impacted to be honnest, so take my abstension as a view more than as an advice.
Best,
--- Olivier
Cheers,
Chris Disspain CEO - auDA Sent from my phone
On 27/02/2009, at 0:10, Olivier Guillard / AFNIC <Olivier.Guillard@nic.fr
wrote:
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 shou ld 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
-- Olivier
participants (4)
-
ceo＠auda.org.au -
Dr Paulos Nyirenda -
Olivier Guillard / AFNIC -
Oscar A. Robles-Garay