[Fwd: Resolution of the ccNSO Council on timing of the new IDN gTLD and "Fast Track" process]
-------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Cc: Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> Subject: Resolution of the ccNSO Council on timing of the new IDN gTLD and "Fast Track" process Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 09:51:23 -0800 Avri, This is the resolution of the ccNSO Council Chris referred to. It is also published on the ccnso website (www.ccnso.icann.org). Kind regards, Bart --------------------- "Resolution ccNSO Council 19 February 2009 on timing of the launch of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track and new IDN gTLD process. Background In 2007 the ccNSO, and the ICANN community generally, discussed the possibility of using an interim approach to IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes to meet near-term demands and to gain experience with mechanisms for the selection and delegation of IDN ccTLDs that would also inform a policy development process aimed at creating an overall policy on IDN ccTLDs. To that end in November 2007 the ICANN Board requested the chairs of the ALAC, ccNSO , GAC, GNSO and SSAC to establish a working group (the IDNC Working Group) to develop and report on feasible methods, if any, that would enable the introduction, in a timely manner and in a manner that ensures the continued security and stability of the Internet, of a limited number of IDN ccTLDs while the overall policy is being developed. After extensive community comment, the IDNC Working Group submitted its final report to the ICANN Board. In May 2008 the Board directed ICANN staff to post the IDNC WG final report for public comments, commence work on implementation issues in consultation with relevant stakeholders and submit a detailed implementation plan including a list of any outstanding issues to the Board in advance of the ICANN Cairo meeting in November 2008. Resolution The ccNSO Council notes that the GNSO Council submitted substantive comments on the IDNC WG final report. Included in those comments was a statement that “the introduction of IDN gTLDs or IDN ccTLDs should not be delayed because of lack of readiness of one category, but if they are not introduced at the same time, steps should be taken so that neither category is advantaged or disadvantaged, and procedures should be developed to avoid possible conflicts” (GNSO Council submission, 15 August 2008). The ccNSO Council also notes the GNSO Council resolution of 8 January 2009, which states that the GNSO Council strongly believes that neither the new gTLD nor ccTLD fast track process should result in IDN TLDs being entered into the root before the other unless both the GNSO and ccNSO so agree. The ccNSO Council notes the apparent change in the view of the GNSO regarding the timing of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track and the new IDN gTLD process. 'Prior to stating the ccNSO Council position, we would welcome a discussion with the GNSO Council to gain a better understanding of the apparent change in view."
After our joint session today, it sounds like this motion is no longer needed. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 2:49 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: [council] [Fwd: Resolution of the ccNSO Council on timing of the new IDN gTLD and "Fast Track" process]
-------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Cc: Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> Subject: Resolution of the ccNSO Council on timing of the new IDN gTLD and "Fast Track" process Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 09:51:23 -0800
Avri, This is the resolution of the ccNSO Council Chris referred to. It is also published on the ccnso website (www.ccnso.icann.org). Kind regards, Bart ---------------------
"Resolution ccNSO Council 19 February 2009 on timing of the launch of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track and new IDN gTLD process. Background
In 2007 the ccNSO, and the ICANN community generally, discussed the possibility of using an interim approach to IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes to meet near-term demands and to gain experience with mechanisms for the selection and delegation of IDN ccTLDs that would also inform a policy development process aimed at creating an overall policy on IDN ccTLDs.
To that end in November 2007 the ICANN Board requested the chairs of the ALAC, ccNSO , GAC, GNSO and SSAC to establish a working group (the IDNC Working Group) to develop and report on feasible methods, if any, that would enable the introduction, in a timely manner and in a manner that ensures the continued security and stability of the Internet, of a limited number of IDN ccTLDs while the overall policy is being developed.
After extensive community comment, the IDNC Working Group submitted its final report to the ICANN Board.
In May 2008 the Board directed ICANN staff to post the IDNC WG final report for public comments, commence work on implementation issues in consultation with relevant stakeholders and submit a detailed implementation plan including a list of any outstanding issues to the Board in advance of the ICANN Cairo meeting in November 2008.
Resolution The ccNSO Council notes that the GNSO Council submitted substantive comments on the IDNC WG final report. Included in those comments was a statement that "the introduction of IDN gTLDs or IDN ccTLDs should not be delayed because of lack of readiness of one category, but if they are not introduced at the same time, steps should be taken so that neither category is advantaged or disadvantaged, and procedures should be developed to avoid possible conflicts" (GNSO Council submission, 15 August 2008).
The ccNSO Council also notes the GNSO Council resolution of 8 January 2009, which states that the GNSO Council strongly believes that neither the new gTLD nor ccTLD fast track process should result in IDN TLDs being entered into the root before the other unless both the GNSO and ccNSO so agree.
The ccNSO Council notes the apparent change in the view of the GNSO regarding the timing of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track and the new IDN gTLD process. 'Prior to stating the ccNSO Council position, we would welcome a discussion with the GNSO Council to gain a better understanding of the apparent change in view."
participants (2)
-
Avri Doria -
Gomes, Chuck