Thread: ICANN Nairobi
View Single Post
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 13th March 2010, 12:20 AM
phio's Avatar
phio phio is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Arctic Circle
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: (31)
Rep Power: 689
phio is an unknown quantity at this pointphio is an unknown quantity at this pointphio is an unknown quantity at this pointphio is an unknown quantity at this pointphio is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: ICANN Nairobi

more from the board meeting:

>>RAM MOHAN: Thank you, Peter.

This resolution is about the principles for handling synchronized
IDN ccTLDs for the fast track process.

Whereas, ICANN launched the IDN ccTLD fast track process on 16th
November 2009 as set forth in the board resolution of 30 October 2009;

Whereas, during the ICANN international public meeting in Sydney,
board members convened the Implementation Support Team to provide
recommendations on how to manage IDN ccTLD strings;

Whereas, the Fast Track Final Implementation Plan states that the
limitation on the number of IDN ccTLDs is one per official language
or script per country, and defines the policy under which requests
are processed;

Whereas, the board, during the ICANN international public meeting in
Nairobi, requested Harald Alvestrand and Ram Mohan to convene a
working group, the Equivalent Strings Working Group, ES-WG, to
address instances in the fast track process where more than one
official language or script exists within a country or territory and
where requests are for multiple corresponding strings that are
considered equivalent so that users of the community accessing
domains under all versions of the string expect that each of them
will resolve to the same address (Hereafter referred to as
synchronized IDN ccTLDs).

Whereas, the ES-WG determined that developing a formal procedure to
accept IDN ccTLD fast track requests for synchronized IDN ccTLD
strings is appropriate and solves a real problem for the people in
the community ICANN is seeking to serve by launching IDN ccTLDs;

Whereas, there appears to be general community consensus, and the ES-
WG concurs, that any request for synchronized IDN ccTLD strings must
solve a significant problem for the communities that use the scripts,
to be confirmed with sufficient due diligence by staff, the details
to be defined in an equivalent script implementation plan or ES
Implementation Plan;

Whereas, the ES-WG notes that all existing fast track requirements
and rules apply for string selection and validation of the
synchronized IDN ccTLD strings and DNS security and stability, as
well as usability concerns, must be taken into account;

Whereas, the ES-WG recommends that requests for synchronized IDN
ccTLD strings must be accompanied by adequate and verifiable
procedures to enable convergence at every level of the domains named
by this TLD, following criteria established in the ES Implementation
Plan, and to take immediate steps to remove any divergence should it

And, whereas, the ES-WG recommends that if an improved technical
standard for the delegation and management of synchronized IDN ccTLDs
is arrived at and is applicable for such delegations, IDN ccTLD
managers should migrate to that standard in a safe, stable, and
timely manner.

Resolved, that pursuant to the ES-WG recommendations, the board
approves the principles identified above for the evaluation of
synchronized IDN ccTLDs for the fast track process;

Resolved, the CEO is directed to have prepared an ES Implementation
Plan for the fast track evaluation of synchronized IDN ccTLDs using
the ES-WG's principles as a framework.


Is there a seconder for this resolution?

Thank you, Dennis.

Anyone wish to speak to it?

Thomas, Bruce, Mike. Starting with Thomas.

>>THOMAS NARTEN: Thank you, Peter.

I just wanted to mention that the working group straddled a very
fine balance here. And with the requirements of countries and user
communities with a compelling need and expectation for a particular
kind of behavior when using IDNs in variants. And I think it needs
to be said that the reality is when variants are involved, there
isn't sort of a single ideal, perfect, easy technical approach that
works in all the cases. As much as we would like.

And the approach that we're recommending here is it will allow the
use of variants in a relatively narrow context in which we have
operational experience with a particular approach, so we have a --
you know, a fair amount of confidence that it can be made to work.
But at the same time, it's worth noting that this approach will not
likely work in other environments where the variant issues are
different. So we by no means have solved the variant problem.
There's still quite a bit of work to do, as reflected by some of the
other resolutions that are on the agenda today.

Thank you.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Thomas.


>>BRUCE TONKIN: Thanks, Peter.

Just to elaborate slightly on what Thomas has said, we do have
another resolution that we've already passed on IDN variants. And we
have this resolution. So potentially, people may be confused why
there's two.

I think if we look at what the expected behavior is, if I have
example.TLD variant 1 and example.TLD variant 2, the expected
behavior from users is often that they will reach the same Internet
location. It sounds very simple.

Actually, the implementation very technically is very hard. And
that's because the issue of getting your name resolved when you type
example.TLD variant is a distributed system, and there's multiple
computer systems involved in making that work. And also multiple
entities involved in managing that data. So that can include a
registry operator; it can include a registrar; and it can include a
DNS operator, which may or may not be the registrant. So there's,
like, three or four systems involved here.

So the simplest answer for many applications is simply to say, what
we don't want is to have variants of a name at the top level that do
result in unexpected behavior. And so a very simple technical
solution is to say, okay, we have one delegated into the root, and we
reserve the other variant to stop it being misused by another party
in the future.

But we do recognize that there are some situations where there is an
expectation within that user community that both variants in general
language use are widely used amongst users using computers in that
location, both in their exchange of e-mail and use of World Wide Web
applications. And so we do realize that we have to create some
specific rules, if you like, that will deal with that situation.

The other comment I would make is that I'm always very wary when we
have a board working group really doing development of process -- of
solutions as opposed to relying on staff and the community. And so I
think this is a case where we are making an exception, partly because
we have world experts on the board that cover many of the fields that
need to be considered in this. But I want to reiterate, what I don't
want to see is the board working in isolation. And there is a part
of this resolution that's fairly general. It just says "consult with
the ICANN community."

But if I can be a little bit more specific on my expectations of
that, there was a fast track process for IDNs that involved the GAC,
ccNSO, and the GNSO, and maybe others. I would hope perhaps that
that group may self-form again or at least some members of that
group, and try and make early contact with the board working group so
that there is an interaction. Because I do want to make sure that
the community has both an understanding and a support for whatever
solution is finally presented to the board.

And that also goes for any language communities that feel that they
have a situation that merits this approach. There may be several,
that those language communities make early contact with the board
working group.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Bruce.

Harald, are you still on the speaking order?


I just wish to say that I -- I think the working group has come on
the right side of -- working groups of the board, or the board, don't
do operational action. So it's not for the board to approve or
disapprove of any single string, except for a final delegation step.

So I think we did the right thing in making sure we have a policy
where -- that allows staff the flexibility to come to the conclusions
that are right for the community. And our interest is always that
the public interest of the Internet users should be served.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Harald.

Next on my list is Ram Mohan, followed by Suzanne, followed by Ray.

So, Ram, you're next.


Let's go to Ray.

>>RAY PLZAK: Thank you, Peter.

I just want to say that I really endorse the concerns that Bruce has
mentioned. So, for me, that's a big "me, too."

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Ray. So noted.


>>DENNIS JENNINGS: This is a very general -- dealing with a very
general issue and is very -- is couched in very general language.
And I think that is quite appropriate so that it's a -- covers all
cases and has a process and delegates to staff the implementation
details. But we're aware that there are some very large language
communities that that applies to immediately. I believe -- I
understand that the upper and lowercases, that's the appropriate
designation of the Chinese language scripts is one possible example.
And I just want to confirm in English whether this process would deal
with that case if it were -- you know, if it were a case to arise.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Does a member of the working group feel
able to respond to Dr. Jennings' request?


>>HARALD ALVESTRAND: My understanding is that this gives staff the
framework it needs to evaluate such a request and react positively,
as long as -- as long as staff has assured itself that the security
and stability of the Internet is not jeopardized.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Harald.

Suzanne, are you ready to join us on this one?


Thank you, Peter.

I just -- given the amount of discussion on the IDN resolutions, I
would just like to -- it's a very complex area, has caused a great
deal of discussion. And I just want to sort of put a framing
perspective to it.

All of the IDN resolutions speak to a very important milestone in
that we're moving further along the line from policy development to
concerns of implementation and deployment. We're continuing to find
challenges, but we need to keep that in perspective. That's to be
expected with an undertaking of this magnitude and importance. So I
just want to note, today's resolutions do represent real progress
towards IDN TLDs in the root. And we can look forward to further
challenges. But that's -- that's how we get there. We're also
looking forward to further progress.

Thank you.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Suzanne.

And now Ram Mohan.

>>RAM MOHAN: Thank you, Peter.

While the resolution has a great deal of technical depth, et cetera,
and as Dennis said, this is a -- what the working group has proposed,
a generic solution. Generic solution because we think this is a
problem that may recur, that may come back again.

The most immediate example, however, of this situation is that in
the -- in the Chinese script-using communities. I won't go into the
details of the problem. But my own perspective is that with the
principles that the working group has provided in this resolution, I
think it provides a very clear path for problems such as those that
the Chinese script-speaking communities have, for those to be
resolved in a very rapid manner, I believe it's the board's goal and
expectation that establishing this set of principles, followed by,
hopefully, a swift implementation plan from staff, would lead to a
resolution of, for instance, the Chinese language issues.

Thank you.


And, Janis, you wanted to respond, I think, to a point.

Thank you.

>>JANIS KARKLINS: Thank you, Peter.

I just wanted to quickly react to a proposal of Bruce's. And I can
confirm that the GAC would be very much prepared to interact with the
working group. And I just received a confirmation also from chairman
of the ccNSO that ccNSO is also willing to interact with the members
of the working group on the subject.

Thank you.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Once again, it sounds like harmony and
collaboration is breaking out. I'm not sure that we can cope with
too much more of this.

Thank you very much.

Any further comment on that resolution? If not, I'll -- let's put
that resolution as moved and seconded.

All those in favor, please raise your hands.

Rita, how do you vote?

>>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: Vote in favor, please.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Carried unanimously. "

link here, bottom of the page[]=354

Last edited by phio; 13th March 2010 at 12:31 AM..
Reply With Quote