Draft GNSO Council Response to ICANN Board Regarding IDN Implementation Guidelines v4.0.
Dear Councilors, On behalf of the GNSO Council leadership, staff is circulating the proposed GNSO Council response, developed by the leadership team, to the ICANN Board regarding the request for continued deferral of IDN Implementation Guidelines v4.0. Taking into account the presentation by RySG Councilors on 16 December 2021, this letter provides a direct response to the Board questions and suggested approach to move forward with the IDN Implementation Guidelines v4.0. Highlight of the letter: * The IDN implementation guidelines that overlap with IDNs EPDP charter questions and should continue being deferred are: 6a, 11, 12, 13, and 18 * While the RySG did not identify 6a as an overlapping item, upon further review by the GNSO Council leadership, it in fact overlaps with IDNs EPDP charter question c6. See annex of the letter for details. * Based on the understanding that non-overlapping guidelines are part of the currently applicable IDN Guidelines 3.0 and/or additional non-mandatory guidelines not covered in IDNs EPDP’s charter, the letter provides support for Board’s suggestion that those non-overlapping guidelines should move forward for Board adoption. In the absence of objections by Thursday, 20 January 2022, this letter will be sent to the ICANN Board as the GNSO Council response. Thank you for your review. Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Sr. Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Hi Ariel (and Councillors): I recommend the attached amendment / clarification because the current version opens the council up for criticism about its approach and respect for stability and security issues, i.e., puts the Council in a bad light.. The reasoning can be described in the timeline of events: The Council requested that the Board defer the implementation of Guidelines v4.0 The Board wrote saying there might be stability / security issues so let’s bifurcate the implementation The Council (in this letter) says “ok” To any reader not keeping up with this, one can infer that the Council made this recommendation without considering potential stability / security effects. That is why it is important for the Council to re-aver that this was investigated and there are none of these issues. When authors of the IDN EPDP Charter approached some councillors with the suggestion that v4.0 be deferred as a way to prevent conflicting IDN standards and also to economize on the use of community volunteer time, the first question of the councillors was whether there were stability or security issues addressed in the new guidelines. When the recommendation was presented to the council, the first questions were about stability and security issues. So I think it should be reflected on the record that the Council and its SG&C stakeholders take stability and security issues seriously, as a matter of first inquiry, and would not make a recommendation without that sort of review.The suggested amendment corrects this ‘hole’ in the record. I think it is unfortunate that the Board did not trust its community experts on the issue but we are where we are and should move ahead. Please let me know if the suggestion is not clear or if I can offer addition information. Thanks in advance for considering it. Best regards, Kurt
On Jan 7, 2022, at 6:35 AM, Ariel Liang via council <council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Dear Councilors,
On behalf of the GNSO Council leadership, staff is circulating the proposed GNSO Council response, developed by the leadership team, to the ICANN Board regarding the request for continued deferral of IDN Implementation Guidelines v4.0.
Taking into account the presentation by RySG Councilors on 16 December 2021, this letter provides a direct response to the Board questions and suggested approach to move forward with the IDN Implementation Guidelines v4.0.
Highlight of the letter: The IDN implementation guidelines that overlap with IDNs EPDP charter questions and should continue being deferred are: 6a, 11, 12, 13, and 18 While the RySG did not identify 6a as an overlapping item, upon further review by the GNSO Council leadership, it in fact overlaps with IDNs EPDP charter question c6. See annex of the letter for details. Based on the understanding that non-overlapping guidelines are part of the currently applicable IDN Guidelines 3.0 and/or additional non-mandatory guidelines not covered in IDNs EPDP’s charter, the letter provides support for Board’s suggestion that those non-overlapping guidelines should move forward for Board adoption.
In the absence of objections by Thursday, 20 January 2022, this letter will be sent to the ICANN Board as the GNSO Council response.
Thank you for your review.
Best Regards, Ariel
Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Sr. Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
<GNSO Council Response to ICANN Board Letter Regarding the Request for Continued Deferral of IDN Implementation Guidelines v4.0.docx>_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council>
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hello Kurt and Councilors, Thank you, Kurt, for providing the suggested edits and rationale. I understand that the suggested edits provide additional context to the letter without changing its substance. As a friendly reminder to all Councilors – please be so kind to review the letter and Kurt’s suggested edits, and provide input (if any) by EOB Thursday, 20 January 2022. The GNSO Council leadership is expected to take the input into account when finalizing the response to the ICANN Board. Thank you for your review. Best Regards, Ariel From: Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> Date: Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 1:42 AM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> Cc: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Response to ICANN Board Regarding IDN Implementation Guidelines v4.0. Hi Ariel (and Councillors): I recommend the attached amendment / clarification because the current version opens the council up for criticism about its approach and respect for stability and security issues, i.e., puts the Council in a bad light.. The reasoning can be described in the timeline of events: 1. The Council requested that the Board defer the implementation of Guidelines v4.0 2. The Board wrote saying there might be stability / security issues so let’s bifurcate the implementation 3. The Council (in this letter) says “ok” To any reader not keeping up with this, one can infer that the Council made this recommendation without considering potential stability / security effects. That is why it is important for the Council to re-aver that this was investigated and there are none of these issues. When authors of the IDN EPDP Charter approached some councillors with the suggestion that v4.0 be deferred as a way to prevent conflicting IDN standards and also to economize on the use of community volunteer time, the first question of the councillors was whether there were stability or security issues addressed in the new guidelines. When the recommendation was presented to the council, the first questions were about stability and security issues. So I think it should be reflected on the record that the Council and its SG&C stakeholders take stability and security issues seriously, as a matter of first inquiry, and would not make a recommendation without that sort of review.The suggested amendment corrects this ‘hole’ in the record. I think it is unfortunate that the Board did not trust its community experts on the issue but we are where we are and should move ahead. Please let me know if the suggestion is not clear or if I can offer addition information. Thanks in advance for considering it. Best regards, Kurt On Jan 7, 2022, at 6:35 AM, Ariel Liang via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: Dear Councilors, On behalf of the GNSO Council leadership, staff is circulating the proposed GNSO Council response, developed by the leadership team, to the ICANN Board regarding the request for continued deferral of IDN Implementation Guidelines v4.0. Taking into account the presentation by RySG Councilors on 16 December 2021, this letter provides a direct response to the Board questions and suggested approach to move forward with the IDN Implementation Guidelines v4.0. Highlight of the letter: * The IDN implementation guidelines that overlap with IDNs EPDP charter questions and should continue being deferred are: 6a, 11, 12, 13, and 18 * While the RySG did not identify 6a as an overlapping item, upon further review by the GNSO Council leadership, it in fact overlaps with IDNs EPDP charter question c6. See annex of the letter for details. * Based on the understanding that non-overlapping guidelines are part of the currently applicable IDN Guidelines 3.0 and/or additional non-mandatory guidelines not covered in IDNs EPDP’s charter, the letter provides support for Board’s suggestion that those non-overlapping guidelines should move forward for Board adoption. In the absence of objections by Thursday, 20 January 2022, this letter will be sent to the ICANN Board as the GNSO Council response. Thank you for your review. Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Sr. Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) <GNSO Council Response to ICANN Board Letter Regarding the Request for Continued Deferral of IDN Implementation Guidelines v4.0.docx>_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Dear Councilors, In absence of additional comments by the deadline, the GNSO Council letter to the ICANN Board regarding the IDN Implementation Guidelines v4.0 has been finalized, incorporating Kurt’s input. Please find attached the final clean version approved by the Council leadership. On behalf of the GNSO Council, staff will transmit the letter to the ICANN Board. Best Regards, Ariel From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 1:27 PM To: Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Response to ICANN Board Regarding IDN Implementation Guidelines v4.0. Hello Kurt and Councilors, Thank you, Kurt, for providing the suggested edits and rationale. I understand that the suggested edits provide additional context to the letter without changing its substance. As a friendly reminder to all Councilors – please be so kind to review the letter and Kurt’s suggested edits, and provide input (if any) by EOB Thursday, 20 January 2022. The GNSO Council leadership is expected to take the input into account when finalizing the response to the ICANN Board. Thank you for your review. Best Regards, Ariel From: Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> Date: Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 1:42 AM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> Cc: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Response to ICANN Board Regarding IDN Implementation Guidelines v4.0. Hi Ariel (and Councillors): I recommend the attached amendment / clarification because the current version opens the council up for criticism about its approach and respect for stability and security issues, i.e., puts the Council in a bad light.. The reasoning can be described in the timeline of events: 1. The Council requested that the Board defer the implementation of Guidelines v4.0 2. The Board wrote saying there might be stability / security issues so let’s bifurcate the implementation 3. The Council (in this letter) says “ok” To any reader not keeping up with this, one can infer that the Council made this recommendation without considering potential stability / security effects. That is why it is important for the Council to re-aver that this was investigated and there are none of these issues. When authors of the IDN EPDP Charter approached some councillors with the suggestion that v4.0 be deferred as a way to prevent conflicting IDN standards and also to economize on the use of community volunteer time, the first question of the councillors was whether there were stability or security issues addressed in the new guidelines. When the recommendation was presented to the council, the first questions were about stability and security issues. So I think it should be reflected on the record that the Council and its SG&C stakeholders take stability and security issues seriously, as a matter of first inquiry, and would not make a recommendation without that sort of review.The suggested amendment corrects this ‘hole’ in the record. I think it is unfortunate that the Board did not trust its community experts on the issue but we are where we are and should move ahead. Please let me know if the suggestion is not clear or if I can offer addition information. Thanks in advance for considering it. Best regards, Kurt On Jan 7, 2022, at 6:35 AM, Ariel Liang via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: Dear Councilors, On behalf of the GNSO Council leadership, staff is circulating the proposed GNSO Council response, developed by the leadership team, to the ICANN Board regarding the request for continued deferral of IDN Implementation Guidelines v4.0. Taking into account the presentation by RySG Councilors on 16 December 2021, this letter provides a direct response to the Board questions and suggested approach to move forward with the IDN Implementation Guidelines v4.0. Highlight of the letter: * The IDN implementation guidelines that overlap with IDNs EPDP charter questions and should continue being deferred are: 6a, 11, 12, 13, and 18 * While the RySG did not identify 6a as an overlapping item, upon further review by the GNSO Council leadership, it in fact overlaps with IDNs EPDP charter question c6. See annex of the letter for details. * Based on the understanding that non-overlapping guidelines are part of the currently applicable IDN Guidelines 3.0 and/or additional non-mandatory guidelines not covered in IDNs EPDP’s charter, the letter provides support for Board’s suggestion that those non-overlapping guidelines should move forward for Board adoption. In the absence of objections by Thursday, 20 January 2022, this letter will be sent to the ICANN Board as the GNSO Council response. Thank you for your review. Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Sr. Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) <GNSO Council Response to ICANN Board Letter Regarding the Request for Continued Deferral of IDN Implementation Guidelines v4.0.docx>_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (2)
-
Ariel Liang -
Kurt Pritz