Thanks to both Avri and the team for this draft. I also support Chuck's proposed edits to the draft. The sooner we can transmit the letter to the board, the better. A fundamental question to be answered by the entire community is "where to draw the line between ccTLD space and gTLD space?" Robin On Dec 19, 2007, at 2:13 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks Avri. This was very well written. I compliment the group in getting this down in writing.
In case we do decide to send this document, here are a few minor edits and some other suggested changes that I think are nonmaterial in terms of the content plus a few observations and questions.
I think it would be helpful to do a global change of "Council" to "GNSO Council" just to make it clear which Council we are talking about because the ccNSO has a Council as well.
1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: change "limited number of IDN TLD representing territories" to "limited number of IDN TLDs representing territories".
End of 2nd paragraph: I suggest we change 'IDN ccTLDs' to 'IDN TLDs associated with ISO 3166-1 country codes' with a footnote that says something like, "Throughout the rest of this document we use the term 'IDN ccTLDs' because that is the term used by the Board, the ccNSO and the GAC." The rationale for this change is to recognize that IDN TLDs are not really ccTLDs until such time as a decision is made to apportion the IDN TLDs to the ccNSO, thereby being consistent with our argument in the text that follows.
Under 'Basis for allocating TLDs to the GTLD and ccTLD name spaces', 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence: change 'IDN ccTLD' to 'IDN ccTLDs'.
In the same section, 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence: I would put 'Among most in the GNSO' in brackets until such time that we establish that is the case and also suggest that we may want to say 'Among most on the GNSO Council' unless we plan to involve the broader GNSO in making this determination.
The same sentence says, "the assumption is still that all TLDs, except for .mil, .edu, and the ISO3166-1 defined ccTLDs remain within the remit of the GNSO." Shouldn't we also include .int, .arpa and .gov?
The last sentence of the same paragraph reads, "The conclusions of such a process should also be permit, and may also require, a redefinition of the ccNSO and GNSO remits as they are currently defined." First, I think the word 'be' should be deleted. Second, where is the definition of the GNSO name space currently defined? I understand that some assume the definition in this document, but what is that assumption based on? If it is not defined anywhere other than in people's memory, we may want to say, "a definition of the ccNSO and GNSO name spaces."
Footnote 2: I believe "It should noted that the recommends . . " should say, "It should noted that the recommendations . . "
The last paragraph, last sentence of the same paragraph says, "Until such time as the ICANN community at large has decided on the proper apportionment of the IDN TLD name space for the ccNSO's remit, any fast-track method must be developed with balanced participation from the GNSO, along with the ccNSO and GAC." As I said to you elsewhere, I personally think that many will perceive 'balanced participation' to mean 'equal numbers'. My understanding is that that is not what is intended here; if not, I suggest we make that clear. I do not think that we necessarily need equal numbers, but I do believe that any decisions regarding what names are defined to be in GNSO and ccNSO name spaces requires participation by the whole community and not just the GNSO or ccNSO, as stated elsewhere in this document.
Under the questions:
- The second bullet reads, "It is unclear who the intended registries of the to be defined IDN ccTLDs are. Are these the traditional ccTLD registries as defined by RFC 1591? Are these the IDNs associated with language and cultural communities as envisioned by the IDN WG? Or are these new IDN ccTLDs critical national resources that come under some form of national administration?" It is not clear to me why we are asking these questions. They are questions that certainly need to be answered and they have been raised in the Issues Paper and in the just released IDNC document.
- In the last bullet change 'insure' to 'ensure'.
Under "The need for adequate GNSO representation on the IDNC WG":
- In the 1st paragraph, 1st sentence, depending on whether 'redefinition' is changed to 'definition' earlier in the document, we may want to change it here as well; secondly, 'need to resolved' to 'need to be resolved'; third, we use the term 'equal representation' here whereas we said balanced representation earlier - equal representation in my opinion seems to quite clearly imply numerical equality. I am not sure I agree with this if this group does decide on name space allocation questions.
- In the 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence, change 'where' to 'were' and 'is' to 'its'.
Under 'GNSO request':
- In the 1st sentence of the 1st paragraph, change 'insure' to 'ensure' and change 'general name to space to IDN ccTLDs' to 'general name space to the ccNSO'.
- In the 1st sentence of the last paragraph, change 'the GNSO council aslo respectfully request' to 'the GNSO Council also respectfully requests'.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 2:20 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Draft - Appeal to Board relating to IDNC WG
Hi,
The attached document is the draft produced by the small drafting team set up for that purpose.
This is not on the agenda for 20 Dec, but rather for 3 Jan. In the meantime we can discuss it on the list and can revise it as necessary before the meeting.
At this point I see a few alternative actions:
- After revisions and discussions by the council it is sent to the Board - After discssions and a decsion on the 6th, it is sent back to the drafting team for further work. - After discussion by the council we decide to do somethig ther en send this to the Board.
Note: One line in the draft says that this has the agreement of the council. that phrase is [bracketed with a note] as it is obviously not (yet) the case.
I thank those who participated in the drafting team.
a.
IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@ipjustice.org