Fwd: [council] Message from the GNSO to the ICANN Board relating to Board Resolution 07.89 regarding a fast-track for IDN ccTLDs

[Robin Gross]

> FYI: very important GNSO letter to the ICANN Board below about the  
> need to determine what is a new gtld and what is a cctld before  
> going forward.
>  - Robin
>
> Message relating to Board Resolution 07.89 regarding a fast-track  
> for IDN ccTLDs
> During its meeting in Los Angeles the ICANN Board passed Resolution  
> 07.89 relating to
> a possible fast-track for IDN ccTLDs. While the GSNO, in general,  
> supports efforts to
> explore the feasibility of a fast-track for allocation of a limited  
> number of IDN TLDs
> representing territories designated in the ISO 3166-1 that may have  
> a special need, the
> GNSO council has one primary concern:  Before policy can be  
> finalized regarding new
> IDN TLDs, criteria must be developed to determine how TLDs will be  
> apportioned into
> the ccNSO and GNSO for policy development purposes.
>
> There does not appear to be any documented definition of what TLDs  
> from the name
> space fall into the name spaces for which the supporting  
> organizations have policy
> development responsibilities.  To this point in time it has  
> generally been accepted that:
>
>  The ccNSO is responsible for policy development for the 2-letter  
> ASCII country
> code TLDs as defined in the ISO 3166-1 list as described in RFC 1591.
>
>  The GNSO is responsible for policy development for generic top  
> level domain
> names (gTLDs), although there does not seem to be a formal  
> definition of gTLDs.
> With the introduction of IDN TLDs, it is envisioned that both the  
> ccNSO and GNSO
> develop policies and procedures for introducing new TLDs to the  
> DNS. It therefore
> seems critical to develop community supported criteria for  
> answering questions like the
> following:
>
>  What are the criteria for apportioning TLDs from the general TLD  
> namespace
> into the name space for which the ccNSO has policy management  
> responsibility?
>
>  What are the criteria for apportioning TLDs from the general TLD  
> namespace
> into the name space which the GNSO has policy management  
> responsibility?
>
>  Should any TLD not defined in the ISO 3166-1 list of 2-letter  
> ASCII country
> codes be classified as a gTLD whether IDN or ASCII?
>
> o If not, what criteria would qualify an IDN TLD to fit into the ccNSO
> policy area?
>
>  Should IDN TLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1 list of 2-letter  
> ASCII country
> codes automatically become the policy arena for the ccNSO?
>
> o If so, is it possible to develop a process for determining which  
> IDN TLDs
> become the policy arena for the ccNSO?
>
> o If not, what criteria would be applied to make this decision?
>
> The GNSO Council does not presume to have the answers to these  
> questions but does
> strongly believe that the community as a whole should  
> collaboratively work together to
> develop answers that we can all support.
>
> It is crucial to recognize that decisions like the above must be  
> made by the full ICANN
> naming community.  It would not be appropriate for either the GNSO  
> or the ccNSO to
> primarily take the lead in this task but both policy management  
> organizations should
> participate equally along with open participation by impacted  
> community members
> outside of the two supporting organizations.
>
> Because the work of the IDNC regarding fast track IDN TLDs  
> representing territories
> designated in the ISO 3166-1 list of 2-letter country codes is  
> primarily an effort led by the
> ccNSO and GAC, it would not be appropriate for this group to make  
> these decisions; at
> the same time, implementation of any recommendations the IDNC might  
> make may
> depend on the decisions.  Similarly, the introduction of new IDN  
> gTLDs could be
> dependent on such decisions, which the GNSO may not be able to make  
> without full
> participation by the ccNSO.
>
> Therefore, the GNSO Council recommends the following:
>
>  A new ICANN working group should be formed independent of groups  
> already
> working on fast track IDN TLDs or new gTLDs.
>
>  The ccNSO, GNSO, GAC and ALAC should jointly develop the  
> statement of
> work of this group along with any participants from other ICANN  
> bodies as
> desired.
>
>  This group should operate concurrently with present efforts such  
> as the IDNC and
> the implementation efforts regarding new gTLDs with a goal of  
> completing final
> recommendations within 120 days.
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
>> Date: January 8, 2008 8:50:02 PM PST
>> To: icann-board at icann.org
>> Cc: Peter Dengate Thrush <barrister at chambers.gen.nz>, John Jeffrey  
>> <john.jeffrey at icann.org>, Denise Michel <denise.michel at icann.org>,  
>> Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org>, Chris Disspain  
>> <ceo at auda.org.au>
>> Subject: [council] Message from the GNSO to the ICANN Board  
>> relating to Board Resolution 07.89 regarding a fast-track for IDN  
>> ccTLDs
>>
>> To the ICANN Board;
>>
>> By an unanimous voice-vote at its 3 January, 2008 Teleconference  
>> meeting,
>> the GNSO approved sending the attached message to the Board.  We  
>> request
>> that the ICANN Board of Directors consider this message and the
>> recommendation contained in the message at its next meeting if at  
>> all possible.
>>
>> Thank you
>>
>> Avri Doria
>> Chair, GNSO council
>>
>>
>
>>



IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20080113/65d7fea9/attachment.html>