Avri, This is a topic for potential resolution during tomorrow's Board call. The original draft IDN Guidelines were endorsed by the Board back I believe in June. In the briefing documents provided to the Board from staff we have been advised that there was a public comment period, see http://forum.icann.org/lists/idn-guidelines/. Based upon this public comment the registry working group published a final draft of the IDN Guidelines that incorporated that commentary. It is my opinion that the necessary public consultation has occurred and I am inclined to vote in favor of adopting these resolution tomorrow if presented with a resolution, although I will not make a final determination until hearing the staff briefing and my fellow directors discussion. In connection with the reviewing of the Board briefing documents, I have also consulted with Cary Karp to better understand the issues. So I hope that answers your question, and shed a little light on the homework the Board has to do prior to our calls :-) Best regards, Michael D. Palage -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 12:20 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Final Proposed version 2.0 of IDN Guidelines posted Hi, Are these guidelines going to go through the normal open review period before the board endorses it? Or has that already happened? thanks a. On 7 nov 2005, at 19.54, Bruce Tonkin wrote:

-----Original Message----- From: Tina Dam Sent: Tuesday, 8 November 2005 5:40 AM Subject: Final Proposed version 2.0 of IDN Guidelines posted

Today's IDN status Update includes the posting of the IDN revision working groups proposed final version of the IDN Guidelines. Please note that this still is pending ICANN Board endorsement before it may be considered the final version 2.0.

Along with this, an overview of the actions taken by the working group

in response to the comment received on the initially proposed draft has been posted.

http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-07nov05.htm

Please keep in mind that the IDN forum is still open for the continued

IDN discussions. And please don't hesitate to contact me for any questions.

Best regards,

Tina Dam Chief gTLD Registry Liaison ICANN

I've missed the boat on the public comment period, so I would expect these concerns are moot as it relates to the board's consideration of the document. However for those that might be interested, I wanted to express the concern that these "guidelines" are moving substantial policy making responsibilities from the GNSO to the gTLD administrators. This scope of policy responsibility is only suitable in the ccTLD context. Given the authorship, I am not surprised that this was written up in this fashion. I still have faint hope that the board sees fit to clean up this issue prior to endorsing the document as an acceptable set of guidelines. This comment pertains to guideline six specifically, which reads: "6. Top-level domain registries will work collaboratively with relevant stakeholders to develop IDN-specific registration policies, with the objective of achieving consistent approaches to IDN implementation for the benefit of DNS users worldwide. Top-level domain registries will work collaboratively with each other to address common issues, for example by forming or appointing a consortium to coordinate contact with external communities, elicit the assistance of support groups, and establish global fora." There is also a larger policy issue which has not been dealt with at any level, which I had hoped would have been clarified through this process, which is the extent to which the relationship between ICANN and the gTLD administrators permits the registries to arbitrarily offer these types of services. I am not sure whether or not it would be appropriate for the registry constituency to address this in the context of IDNs, but this should have been explicitly addressed prior to this work being undertaken. -ross Avri Doria wrote:

Hi,

I did not understand, so only the draft needs an open comment period and not the final version with comments included. Is that the normal process?

thanks for the reply. a.

On 7 nov 2005, at 21.31, Michael D. Palage wrote:

...

Avri,

This is a topic for potential resolution during tomorrow's Board call. The original draft IDN Guidelines were endorsed by the Board back I believe in June. In the briefing documents provided to the Board from staff we have been advised that there was a public comment period, see http://forum.icann.org/lists/idn-guidelines/.

Based upon this public comment the registry working group published a final draft of the IDN Guidelines that incorporated that commentary.

It is my opinion that the necessary public consultation has occurred and I am inclined to vote in favor of adopting these resolution tomorrow if presented with a resolution, although I will not make a final determination until hearing the staff briefing and my fellow directors discussion.

In connection with the reviewing of the Board briefing documents, I have also consulted with Cary Karp to better understand the issues.

So I hope that answers your question, and shed a little light on the homework the Board has to do prior to our calls :-)

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage

-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 12:20 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Final Proposed version 2.0 of IDN Guidelines posted

Hi,

Are these guidelines going to go through the normal open review period before the board endorses it? Or has that already happened?

thanks

a.

On 7 nov 2005, at 19.54, Bruce Tonkin wrote:

...

-----Original Message----- From: Tina Dam Sent: Tuesday, 8 November 2005 5:40 AM Subject: Final Proposed version 2.0 of IDN Guidelines posted

Today's IDN status Update includes the posting of the IDN revision working groups proposed final version of the IDN Guidelines. Please note that this still is pending ICANN Board endorsement before it may be considered the final version 2.0.

Along with this, an overview of the actions taken by the working group

...

in response to the comment received on the initially proposed draft has been posted.

http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-07nov05.htm

Please keep in mind that the IDN forum is still open for the continued

...

IDN discussions. And please don't hesitate to contact me for any questions.

Best regards,

Tina Dam Chief gTLD Registry Liaison ICANN

Let me clarify - I'm not aware of any policy that supports the Board action to delegate policy development activities, registration or otherwise, directly to gTLD registries. The fact that it is consistent with a prior action, doesn't make it any more consistent with the policy framework. The second point I raised is more of a "the horse has already left the barn" lament. I'd be happy to elaborate, but it is secondary to the issue I raise above. -ross Ken Stubbs wrote:

*Ross....

I am a bit confused about your concerns expressed in your e-mail below ..

With the exception of one consistency edit, the wording you are expressing concerns about was taken _straight out_ of the version of the specific document "Guidelines for the Implementation of Internationalized Domain Names" *that was approved June 20, 2003. *

These Guidelines were developed collaboratively by ICANN and leading Internationaized Domain Names (IDN) registries. Version 1.0 of these Guidelines was published on 20 June 2003, coinciding with the launch of deployment of IDNs under the IETF's Proposed Standard reflected in RFCs 3490, 3491, and 3492.

The implementation approach set forth in these Guidelines was endorsed by the ICANN Board on 27 March 2003 </minutes/minutes-27mar03.htm#InternationalizedDomainNames>.

Ken Stubbs *

Ross Rader wrote:

...

I've missed the boat on the public comment period, so I would expect these concerns are moot as it relates to the board's consideration of the document.

However for those that might be interested, I wanted to express the concern that these "guidelines" are moving substantial policy making responsibilities from the GNSO to the gTLD administrators. This scope of policy responsibility is only suitable in the ccTLD context. Given the authorship, I am not surprised that this was written up in this fashion. I still have faint hope that the board sees fit to clean up this issue prior to endorsing the document as an acceptable set of guidelines.

This comment pertains to guideline six specifically, which reads:

"6. Top-level domain registries will work collaboratively with relevant stakeholders to develop IDN-specific registration policies, with the objective of achieving consistent approaches to IDN implementation for the benefit of DNS users worldwide. Top-level domain registries will work collaboratively with each other to address common issues, for example by forming or appointing a consortium to coordinate contact with external communities, elicit the assistance of support groups, and establish global fora."

There is also a larger policy issue which has not been dealt with at any level, which I had hoped would have been clarified through this process, which is the extent to which the relationship between ICANN and the gTLD administrators permits the registries to arbitrarily offer these types of services. I am not sure whether or not it would be appropriate for the registry constituency to address this in the context of IDNs, but this should have been explicitly addressed prior to this work being undertaken.

-ross