Personal concerns about GNSO reponse to ccNSO-GAC Issues Report on IDN Issues
Hi, Part of today's conversation involves a discussion on whether we are ready to vote on our recommendations at our next meeting. During the LA meeting, I pretty much kept my viewpoints out of the discussion because I was concerned with accurately reflecting the state of discussion in the council. At this point I would like to add my personal opinions to the discussion. I am uncomfortable with many of the proposals we are making and decided I should send in a note prior to the meeting on some of the issues that most concern me. In general I believe our answers give the governments and the ccNSO a unconstrained slate on which they can designate as many names as they wish as being in ccTLD space. From various conversations I have been involved in, this could come to mean something as broad as: - every possible name of a country or territory's name - in every possible script/ language - including all possible variants We have also heard discussions that indicate that if one country needs a certain number of ccTLDs, then obviously, for the sake of fairness, every country needs the same number. As it currently stands, I cannot vote to approve our current statement. Some of my specific issues:
b) Could there be several IDN strings for a ‘territory’ in a script? If so, who would determine the number and what are the criteria?
Proposed GNSO response: If multiple scripts are used in a territory and if it is judged that those scripts will add value to the user experience, then the sovereign government should make the choice of which scripts and what number of scripts will be in use for IDN ccTLDs.
I am not sure that we actually answered the question in this one. I do not read the question as asking about multiple scripts, but rather read it as asking about multiple names in a single script. I think that this would be problematic, as this would give license for a multitude of names might be in general use for a territory or country. E.g in the US, we have US, USA, UnitedStates, UnitedStatesofAmerica, TheStates, America, LandoftheFreeHomeoftheBrave etc... Should all of these be designated as ccTLDs. and should they all be designated in all scripts/languages that are used, and even only those officially designated in at least one of the states, in the US? If we extrapolate this for all countries/territories, all variants and all scripts/languages, we will find that a very large chunk of the name spaces been being assigned to the ccNSO and to government control. Is this something the GNSO is comfortable with?
Should a list of IDN ccTLD strings be mandated?
In the US-ASCII case, ccTLD strings are currently primfarily based on the ISO 3166-1 Alpha 2 list. If a similar mechanism were adopted for IDN ccTLDs, this could mean that every ISO 3166 entry would have an equivalent IDN ccTLD string(s) to represent it.
a) Is such a list necessary?
Proposed GNSO response: Probably not. Would such a list result in an earlier ability to meet the needs of non-English users? If so, it would seem to be a good idea. If not, then it seems like the higher priority should be to meet user needs and, if that can be done without a list, that might be the better approach. If the list avoided conflicts and confusion, it might be needed (e.g., in situations where there are reports of conflicts and confusion among ccTLD members themselves or where there are reports of such conflicts and confusion from traditional standards bodies like the ISO).
As was shown in the conversation we had in LA, the lack of a list, may mean that an implicit definition will be used that may open up the possibility of an indefinitely large number of potential names being designated as ccTLD space. Is this something the GNSO is comfortable with?
e) Who would develop the criteria and relevant policies for identifying IDN ccTLDs?
Proposed GNSO response: The ccNSO is the policy making body for ccTLDs. It seems like the appropriate body for this task with appropriate input from the broader community within ICANN and with input from the abovementioned non-ICANN entities to establish the legitimacy of the process and the outcome.
I read this as saying that the GSNO agrees that deciding whether a string belongs in ccTLD space is a decision that is made by the ccNSO. Without pre-established constraints, there is no limit to what might be deemed an appropriate IDN ccTLD. I don't see how we can agree to a formulation that is this open. a.
I share all of the concerns that Avri raises below. Obviously this policy is no where near ready for approval. We are going to have to spend some time fixing these recommendations and provide some guidance on this process. Robin Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
Part of today's conversation involves a discussion on whether we are ready to vote on our recommendations at our next meeting. During the LA meeting, I pretty much kept my viewpoints out of the discussion because I was concerned with accurately reflecting the state of discussion in the council. At this point I would like to add my personal opinions to the discussion.
I am uncomfortable with many of the proposals we are making and decided I should send in a note prior to the meeting on some of the issues that most concern me.
In general I believe our answers give the governments and the ccNSO a unconstrained slate on which they can designate as many names as they wish as being in ccTLD space.
From various conversations I have been involved in, this could come to mean something as broad as:
- every possible name of a country or territory's name - in every possible script/ language - including all possible variants
We have also heard discussions that indicate that if one country needs a certain number of ccTLDs, then obviously, for the sake of fairness, every country needs the same number.
As it currently stands, I cannot vote to approve our current statement.
Some of my specific issues:
/b) Could there be several IDN strings for a ‘territory’ in a script? If so, who would / /determine the number and what are the criteria?/
Proposed GNSO response: If multiple scripts are used in a territory and if it is judged that those scripts will add value to the user experience, then the sovereign government should make the choice of which scripts and what number of scripts will be in use for IDN ccTLDs.
I am not sure that we actually answered the question in this one.
I do not read the question as asking about multiple scripts, but rather read it as asking about multiple names in a single script.
I think that this would be problematic, as this would give license for a multitude of names might be in general use for a territory or country. E.g in the US, we have US, USA, UnitedStates, UnitedStatesofAmerica, TheStates, America, LandoftheFreeHomeoftheBrave etc... Should all of these be designated as ccTLDs. and should they all be designated in all scripts/languages that are used, and even only those officially designated in at least one of the states, in the US?
If we extrapolate this for all countries/territories, all variants and all scripts/languages, we will find that a very large chunk of the name spaces been being assigned to the ccNSO and to government control.
Is this something the GNSO is comfortable with?
*/Should a list of IDN ccTLD strings be mandated?/* / / /In the US-ASCII case, ccTLD strings are currently primfarily based on the ISO 3166-1 / /Alpha 2 list. If a similar mechanism were adopted for IDN ccTLDs, this could mean that / /every ISO 3166 entry would have an equivalent IDN ccTLD string(s) to represent it./
/a) Is such a list necessary?/
Proposed GNSO response: Probably not. Would such a list result in an earlier ability to meet the needs of non-English users? If so, it would seem to be a good idea. If not, then it seems like the higher priority should be to meet user needs and, if that can be done without a list, that might be the better approach. If the list avoided conflicts and confusion, it might be needed (e.g., in situations where there are reports of conflicts and confusion among ccTLD members themselves or where there are reports of such conflicts and confusion from traditional standards bodies like the ISO).
As was shown in the conversation we had in LA, the lack of a list, may mean that an implicit definition will be used that may open up the possibility of an indefinitely large number of potential names being designated as ccTLD space.
Is this something the GNSO is comfortable with?
/e) Who would develop the criteria and relevant policies for identifying IDN ccTLDs?/
Proposed GNSO response: The ccNSO is the policy making body for ccTLDs. It seems like the appropriate body for this task with appropriate input from the broader community within ICANN and with input from the abovementioned non-ICANN entities to establish the legitimacy of the process and the outcome.
I read this as saying that the GSNO agrees that deciding whether a string belongs in ccTLD space is a decision that is made by the ccNSO.
Without pre-established constraints, there is no limit to what might be deemed an appropriate IDN ccTLD.
I don't see how we can agree to a formulation that is this open.
a.
I also think that Avri raises some very important issues that need to be addressed. In my opinion, the intent of the WG was not at all inconsistent with what Avri is suggesting so I believe the wording can be clarified, but we may need to form a subgroup of the Council to do some additional work. I suggest we take steps to do that in today's meeting. I do have one gripe though. Why weren't these concerns communicated in L.A. or sooner? I firmly believe that it is perfectly acceptable and in fact needed for the chair to provide personal input as long as it is identified as personal input. Not doing that, leads to delayed completion of our work as we see in this case. I hope that we won't repeat this in the future. In my opinion it is always better to raise concerns as early as possible in the process to maximize the use of our time. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 11:16 AM To: Avri Doria Cc: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Personal concerns about GNSO reponse to ccNSO-GAC Issues Report on IDN Issues
I share all of the concerns that Avri raises below. Obviously this policy is no where near ready for approval. We are going to have to spend some time fixing these recommendations and provide some guidance on this process.
Robin
Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
Part of today's conversation involves a discussion on whether we are ready to vote on our recommendations at our next meeting. During the LA meeting, I pretty much kept my viewpoints out of the discussion because I was concerned with accurately reflecting the state of discussion in the council. At this point I would like to add my personal opinions to the discussion.
I am uncomfortable with many of the proposals we are making and decided I should send in a note prior to the meeting on some of the issues that most concern me.
In general I believe our answers give the governments and the ccNSO a unconstrained slate on which they can designate as many names as they wish as being in ccTLD space.
From various conversations I have been involved in, this could come to mean something as broad as:
- every possible name of a country or territory's name - in every possible script/ language - including all possible variants
We have also heard discussions that indicate that if one country needs a certain number of ccTLDs, then obviously, for the sake of fairness, every country needs the same number.
As it currently stands, I cannot vote to approve our current statement.
Some of my specific issues:
/b) Could there be several IDN strings for a 'territory' in a script? If so, who would / /determine the number and what are the criteria?/
Proposed GNSO response: If multiple scripts are used in a territory and if it is judged that those scripts will add value to the user experience, then the sovereign government should make the choice of which scripts and what number of scripts will be in use for IDN ccTLDs.
I am not sure that we actually answered the question in this one.
I do not read the question as asking about multiple scripts, but rather read it as asking about multiple names in a single script.
I think that this would be problematic, as this would give license for a multitude of names might be in general use for a territory or country. E.g in the US, we have US, USA, UnitedStates, UnitedStatesofAmerica, TheStates, America, LandoftheFreeHomeoftheBrave etc... Should all of these be designated as ccTLDs. and should they all be designated in all scripts/languages that are used, and even only those officially designated in at least one of the states, in the US?
If we extrapolate this for all countries/territories, all variants and all scripts/languages, we will find that a very large chunk of the name spaces been being assigned to the ccNSO and to government control.
Is this something the GNSO is comfortable with?
*/Should a list of IDN ccTLD strings be mandated?/* / / /In the US-ASCII case, ccTLD strings are currently primfarily based on the ISO 3166-1 / /Alpha 2 list. If a similar mechanism were adopted for IDN ccTLDs, this could mean that / /every ISO 3166 entry would have an equivalent IDN ccTLD string(s) to represent it./
/a) Is such a list necessary?/
Proposed GNSO response: Probably not. Would such a list result in an earlier ability to meet the needs of non-English users? If so, it would seem to be a good idea. If not, then it seems like the higher priority should be to meet user needs and, if that can be done without a list, that might be the better approach. If the list avoided conflicts and confusion, it might be needed (e.g., in situations where there are reports of conflicts and confusion among ccTLD members themselves or where there are reports of such conflicts and confusion from traditional standards bodies like the ISO).
As was shown in the conversation we had in LA, the lack of a list, may mean that an implicit definition will be used that may open up the possibility of an indefinitely large number of potential names being designated as ccTLD space.
Is this something the GNSO is comfortable with?
/e) Who would develop the criteria and relevant policies for identifying IDN ccTLDs?/
Proposed GNSO response: The ccNSO is the policy making body for ccTLDs. It seems like the appropriate body for this task with appropriate input from the broader community within ICANN and with input from the abovementioned non-ICANN entities to establish the legitimacy of the process and the outcome.
I read this as saying that the GSNO agrees that deciding whether a string belongs in ccTLD space is a decision that is made by the ccNSO.
Without pre-established constraints, there is no limit to what might be deemed an appropriate IDN ccTLD.
I don't see how we can agree to a formulation that is this open.
a.
hi, I apologise for not having reacted earlier. One thing that contributed to my delay, however, was that the implications really became clear to me as the issue was being discussed in LA. Before that I had a nagging feeling of discomfort but could not quite put words to it. It was engaging in conversation during that meting and listening to some of the things that were said while in the GAC meting that brought that nagging feeling to the forefront and gave it voice. I think this is one of the reasons why I felt that the GNSO council should not be in a hurry to finalise this before seeing what the other involved organisations were thinking. I thought it was really good that we had a public draft on the table, but did not see the need to finalise it until we had seen the full extent of the topic. That, and sometimes I am slow and it takes me a while to really understand what I am thinking and why, especially when I am busy understanding and explaining council's views to the community at large. Again, apologies for the delay. a. On 20 nov 2007, at 13.06, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I do have one gripe though. Why weren't these concerns communicated in L.A. or sooner? I firmly believe that it is perfectly acceptable and in fact needed for the chair to provide personal input as long as it is identified as personal input. Not doing that, leads to delayed completion of our work as we see in this case. I hope that we won't repeat this in the future. In my opinion it is always better to raise concerns as early as possible in the process to maximize the use of our time.
Gomes, Chuck wrote:
[snip]
I do have one gripe though. Why weren't these concerns communicated in L.A. or sooner? I firmly believe that it is perfectly acceptable and in fact needed for the chair to provide personal input as long as it is identified as personal input. Not doing that, leads to delayed completion of our work as we see in this case. I hope that we won't repeat this in the future. In my opinion it is always better to raise concerns as early as possible in the process to maximize the use of our time.
Chuck Gomes
= I agree with Chuck - the chair and vice-chair are also members of the GNSO Council, so they can - and should - speak up any time as members, as soon as they see an issue. Norbert -- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit us regularly - you can find something new every day: http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com
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
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
participants (6)
-
Avri Doria -
Avri Doria -
Gomes, Chuck -
Norbert Klein -
philip.sheppard＠aim.be -
Robin Gross