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.