February 2008 - council - lists.icann.org

IDN TLDs and Board Motion 2008.02.15.11
by Avri Doria 17 Feb '08

17 Feb '08

Hi, I just wanted to write a short public note to personally thank Susan Crawford for her difficult vote on Board Motion 2008.02.15.11. The way the motion was worded it was hard to vote against, after all, who could be against dialogue? However, what I believe was hidden in this motion was rejection of the GNSO's position regarding the importance of separate community wide understanding the classification, or allotment by any other name, of TLDs which was contained in the GNSO council's request to the Board. I personally see Susan's vote as support for the GNSO position that the entire names community needs to be involved in the process. With this motion, I believe that any hope we may have had for a parallel process is now in the past. I believe we must make the best of the opportunities we will have to comment on, and be part of, the ccNSO and GAC processes to establish a de-facto classification among IDN TLDs and to create a fair playing ground for all IDN TLDs. Thanks Susan. a.

1 0

Next steps on Domain Name Tasting PDP
by Avri Doria 15 Feb '08

15 Feb '08

Hi, At yesterdays meeting we discussed the next steps for the DNT PDP. As thad been some confusion about the steps that could be suggested by a Drafting Team. While I believe that the DT was within its rights to propose a motion as opposed to WG charter as some of us had expected, not everyone understood that this was a possible outcome. I would also like to make a note about how I see Drafting Teams. I think they are small ad-hoc groups formed by council members, though other constituency members may be included, who work together to make a proposal that they hope will be able to garner consensus support. In this respect, it is important for those who have a strong concern about the proposal to volunteer for these Drafting Teams. The proposal they put on the table, however, is just that - a proposal that then needs to be discussed and then accepted, modified or rejected by the council at large. At this point, another meeting of the DT has been scheduled for Monday 25 Feb. At this point I understand that Alan plans to offer a re- wording of the current motion. I believe the option on the table at this point remain the same as at yesterdays meeting. - The council votes on the revised motion (without bracketed text) at either the 27 March meeting. - The council asks constituencies to update impact statements based on the motion and vote at the 17 March meeting - The DT proposes a charter for a WG and the council votes on the creating the proposed WG. thanks a.

4 3

GNSO response to Issues Report on IDN ccTLDs
by Olof Nordling 15 Feb '08

15 Feb '08

Dear all, The attached version of the GNSO response reflects the state of this document at the end of the ICANN New Delhi meeting, following the GNSO discussions on Thursday 14 February. The NCUC will provide a minority statement on "confusingly similar" before Wednesday 20 February 17.00 UTC - and any other comments/modifications have the same deadline. Please send any comments to me. A final version will be sent to the list very soon thereafter for a 48 hour final call and subsequent lodging by the 22 February deadline for submissions. Very best regards Olof

1 0

Agenda for today's meeting 1600-1800
by Avri Doria 14 Feb '08

14 Feb '08

Proposed agenda Items for Thursday Meeting - Discuss agenda - Process for DTN deliberations a. Vote at next meeting b. Update impact based on motion c. WG charter - narrow focus on impact and implementation of motion - wider focus on motion plus other alternatives - discussion on IDN Response open Issues - executive summary Items 5 and 9 seem resolved - executive summary item 10 needs discussion - Process for GNSO Improvement work - WGs? - number of WG charters - DT for charter proposals? - initial guideline for WG processes - Process for contributing to budget discussions - WG? - Process for dealing with new gTLD issue work - WG? - Meeting schedule/time time - other?

3 2

UN country names in 6 languages
by Bruce Tonkin 14 Feb '08

14 Feb '08

Hello All, The link to the list below may be useful in thinking about possible fast track IDN labels that correspond to country names. It contains country names in English, French, Spanish, Russian,, Chinese, and Arabic. The names for Russian, Chinese and Arabic are using a non-latin script. http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/9th-UNCSGN-Docs/E-CONF-98-89-Add1.pdf Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Airport Departure Info
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 14 Feb '08

14 Feb '08

Dear All, Some useful airport information for your departure. You must have a printed copy of your ticket or itinerary to enter the airport. There is a line to get in - they check that you have a ticket - without proof that you have a plane to catch, they will not let you in the airport. The airport is very congested and under construction. You must stand in many lines and they are all long! Please be at the airport three hours before your flight. Some airlines (e.g. Air France) have small staffs and they close their check in desks two hours before the flight. During the check in process, the airline will put a tag on your hand luggage - if the tag is not on your luggage when you go down the jetway, they will not let you take your hand luggage on the plane. Bon voyage! Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Slide for this morning's reporting
by Avri Doria 14 Feb '08

14 Feb '08

Hi, SO's have been restricted to one slide. This is the one slide Im a submitting. a.

1 0

RE: [council] Issue #5 resolution
by Gomes, Chuck 13 Feb '08

13 Feb '08

That is my understanding as well. Chuck Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com) -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@psg.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 06:48 AM Eastern Standard Time To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Issue #5 resolution Hi, I believe we have all accepted the rewrite of Executive summary #5 to read: We support efforts to determine the feasibility of an interim solution whereby a limited number of countries or territories designated in the ISO 3166-1 list that have special needs would be granted IDN labels in the near term provided that no IDN TLDs associated with countries or territories are introduced earlier than IDN gTLDs without prior community concurrence. does anyone disagree? a.

2 1

GNSO Comments in Response to the ccNSO-GAC Issues Report on IDN Issues
by Avri Doria 13 Feb '08

13 Feb '08

Hi, I wanted to remind us of one thing. The deadline for comments to the ccNSO PDP was extended to 22 Feb, in part to give the GNSO time to complete its responses. I recommend that we resolve our 3 issues as soon as possible so that we can do a 48 last call on the list in time to submit the response on time for the deadline - week Friday. As part of this effort, I also propose that the current issues as discussed this morning are the only issues left to discuss. I have attached the notes i used during the meeting. thanks a.

3 3

RE: [council] Issue #5 resolution
by Tim Ruiz 13 Feb '08

13 Feb '08

And mine. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Issue #5 resolution From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Wed, February 13, 2008 6:19 am To: "Avri Doria" <avri(a)psg.com>, "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> That is my understanding as well. Chuck Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com) -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@psg.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 06:48 AM Eastern Standard Time To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Issue #5 resolution Hi, I believe we have all accepted the rewrite of Executive summary #5 to read: We support efforts to determine the feasibility of an interim solution whereby a limited number of countries or territories designated in the ISO 3166-1 list that have special needs would be granted IDN labels in the near term provided that no IDN TLDs associated with countries or territories are introduced earlier than IDN gTLDs without prior community concurrence. does anyone disagree? a.

1 0