Andrei

Excellent summary.

At the technical level I think that the basic use of puny-code instead of Unicode is going to create some really big technical issues as we move toward fuller deployment.

Take care

Terry

From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrei Kolesnikov
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 12:33 PM
To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: RE: [council] Topics for Joint Meetings in Brussels

Dear colleagues,

Regarding gNSO/ccNSO meeting and sync TLDs as a topic.  I propose a different theme, because I have a feeling, that Sync TLD theme today has a very limited implication, refer to Board resolution:

Whereas, the methodology to be taken by the IDN ccTLD manager to handle these particular instances of parallel IDN ccTLDs is, in the short-term, the only option available, but there are serious limits to where such an approach is viable in practice, so that it cannot be viewed as a general solution, and that consequently, long-term development work should be pursued;

Whereas, significant analysis and possibly development work should continue on both policy-based and technical elements of a solution for the introduction on a more general basis of strings containing variants as TLD;

My recommendation to gNSO and ccNSO councilors is to focus on interesting and ¡°yet unknown¡± issues of ¡°IDNs in non-IDN world¡±.  Please find below a short list of issues to cover:

IDNs in NON-IDN world	The issues and problems for the end users, registrars and registries are very similar: this world is not ready for IDNs
Support of browsers	Overview of browsers behavior. DNS traffic cash-in: why local script goes to .COM? Why Google is my default for the IDN script / browser localization? How IDN development changes the food chain of typos, not-founds?
Support of email	Email functionality adds up to IDN popularity. Update on IETF.
IDN code: ¡°IDN-ization¡±, where to stop?	IDN code §Ô§ä§ä§á://§á§â§Ö§Ù§Ú§Õ§Ö§ß§ä.§â§æ/§á§à§ã§ä§Ñ§ß§à§Ó§Ý§Ö§ß§Ú§ñ/§á§â§Ú§Ü§Ñ§Ù1.§Ô§ä§ñ§â
Community activities to get the thing done right	what can be done jointly ccNSO / gNSO to speed up IDN support on application level? What should we demand?

Best regards,

--andrei

From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 12:36 AM
To: council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: [council] Topics for Joint Meetings in Brussels
Importance: High

<<Survey for Board meeting with GNSO in Brussels.docx>>

Assuming  I didn¡¯t miss anyone¡¯s preferences, here is a summary of support for discussion topics in our joint meetings in Brussels:

GAC/GNSO meeting

1.      DAG 4, including morality and public order

o       Support: Bill, Jaime, Wolf, Mary

o       Oppose:

2.      AoC, including A&T RT and next reviews

o       Support: Bill, Jaime, Wolf, Mary

o       Oppose:

3.      RAA

o       Support: Chuck, Mary?

o       Oppose:

4.      IDN ccPDP

o       Support:

o       Oppose: Chuck,

If there are no objections by Monday, I plan to suggest to Janis that we discuss topics 1 & 2 with the GAC.  And would like to request a volunteer (or volunteers) to draft a brief (less than 5 minutes) intro to each topic including any questions we might have for the GAC.

Board/Staff/GNSO dinner meeting

1.      There are rumblings that there are some on the Board who think this meeting has outlived its usefulness; in light of that, it might be useful to discuss the value or lack of value from both the GNSO and Board/Staff perspective.

o       Support: Chuck, St¨¦phane

o       Oppose: 

2.      What do Board members understand about the AoC commitment to promote competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace, with a particular focus on GNSO work

o       Support: Rosemary, Wolf

o       Oppose: 

3.      ICANN and Internet governance directions

o       Support: Terry, Bill, Jaime, Rafik, Mary

o       Oppose:  Wolf

4.      DAG 4, including morality and public order

o       Support: Wolf, Mary

Note that I sent the attached survey to Bruce Tonkin for the purpose of getting individual Board responses and asking Bruce what the best way of doing that would be.

ccNSO/GNSO meeting

1.      DNS-CERT

o       Support: Chuck, Bill, Mary

o       Oppose:

2.      Synchronized TLDs

o       Support: Andrei

o       Oppose:

If there are no objections by Monday, I will send these topics to Chris.  Andrei has volunteered to prepare a brief intro to the Synchronized TLDs topic.  We need a volunteer for the DNS-CERT to do the same.