Hi, While I tend to agree with your way of putting this, I am not sure there is universal agreement on this. I am not even sure if everyone, or a supermajority, within the GNSO council agrees. From conversations I have been having since I started trying to understand the scope of the IDNC and the issue of trying to get more then 2 GNSO members to participate I have perceived diametrically opposed basic assumptions (with a variety of variants): 1. The entire name space including IDNs, with the exception of 3166-1 2 character ccTLD space, is currently within the GNSO remit. 2. All gTLDs that have been allocated or will be allocated are within the remit of the GNSO, but they not within the remit until they are allocated to gTLD space. Unassigned name space in not within either SOs remit until assigned. Personally I have always thought it was the first option and the second option had not even occurred to me until someone argued from that perspective. This appears to be a key basic assumption in trying to determine whether the GNSO merits equal participation or representation in the IDNC. 1. If you hold to the first point of view or some variant of it, then the methods to be determined in the IDNC are the first steps in the reapportionment of TLD name space. I.e a method is determined by which some of the TLD name space that is currently within the GNSO remit is assigned to the ccNSO remit. In which case the GNSO belongs at the table as an equal participant with the ccNSO and GAC 2. If you hold to the second point of view, or some variant of it, then the methods to be determined by the IDNC are the remit of the ccNSO and GAC. and while it s appropriate that the GNSO have representatives, essentially liaisons, within the group, the GNSO is not fundamentally responsible for the decisions the group makes. This is an issue for which we need to understand the GNSO position on in order to finish the work on the GNSO response to the issues paper and an issue that affects the GNSO position in regard to the the IDNC. thanks a. On 20 nov 2007, at 17.24, philip.sheppard@aim.be wrote:
Avri raises some good points about the potential breadth of what we may be saying to the CCSO/GAC. This seems to be a function of us wanting to leave the tough questions to the CCSO/GAC!
Our approach could be turned around.
Assumption In the absence of an ICANN policy there will be NO IDN names reserved in the CC space. They will ALL be available to any applicant via our new process in the g space. The task before ICANN is to create a reserved list/allocation for CC related IDNS - or not.
Conclusion and a key question The question should be therefore who serves the public interest best with respect to CC related IDNS? A CC registry/Government or any one at all?
If we can answer this question, - with criteria to assess the public interest - we will perhaps advance the debate without needing to address issues of volume.
Philip