ICANN IDN TLD update

[Drewbert]

http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-23jan08.htm

3) Discussion of Ongoing Community Dialogue about IDN ccTLDs and gTLDs

The Chair advised that this item was triggered by a GNSO resolution to send the Board a letter relating to the fast track IDN ccTLD process. A letter had also been received from the ccNSO Chair on the topic. The letters can be viewed at:

http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/repsons...89-20dec07.pdf

http://www.icann.org/correspondence/...rd-21jan08.pdf

Denise Michel advised that the ccNSO and GNSO have agreed to meet face-to-face in New Delhi to discuss the GNSO recommendations, and in particular the suggestion of creating a joint working group on the topics of IDN ccTLDs and gTLDs.

The Chair advised that the Board could do nothing and wait for the outcome of the discussions, but could acknowledge receipt of the letter.

Denise Michel advised that the staff recommendation is to acknowledge the letters from GNSO and ccNSO and look forward to developments in New Delhi.

The Chair asked if this approach would satisfy both parties or are they expecting more?

Denise Michel advised that the GNSO request is that Board should create a working group comprising representatives from ccNSO, GNSO, GAC and ALAC and participants from other ICANN bodies as desired. The ccNSO has asked that that action not be taken and that ccNSO and GNSO Councils should discuss this in New Delhi.

Susan Crawford acknowledged that this is obviously a thorny issue and as has been discussed in the past in the context of contractual issues, there is no such thing as a ccTLD IDN. The Board has acknowledged that some want to move forward quickly but there is a problem and a lot of suspicion, and it is not clear, that some would not ask for more than one. My understanding would be a very limited implementation and would be an equivalent to an existing ccTLD, if that's not the case and it is a larger initiative, then the Board needs to understand that. All we've done is approve a working group to consider ISO 3166 equivalents and we see the GNSO erupting. Can we be clear on what the ccTLD expectation is from this process?

Denise Michel advised that the IDNC working group would have an initial report posted in a matter of days, which will be the focus of community discussion at the forthcoming meeting.

Janis Karklins advised that his interpretation of the GNSO concern is not linked to the fast track but linked to a philosophical question of what is an IDN ccTLD in the DNS architecture. The ccNSO has launched a PDP and this question could be answered in that process. It is important to engage in discussion with all constituencies, therefore my suggestion would be apart from acknowledging receipt of the two letters, to encourage them to enter in to dialogue and engage with other constituencies in dialogue and come back to Board for a decision if needed.

Dennis Jennings agreed with Janis, we should do nothing now until the discussions start in New Delhi. However, we should follow up Susan's question about the distinction between the fast track and ccIDNs and the Board should give guidance to the community as to the limited nature of the fast track and what we would consider appropriate.

Dennis Jennings noted that it is a separate topic; it is a fast track for limited purposes and should not be confused with the general question of IDN ccTLDs,

Steve Goldstein advised that all he would vote for is to approve one fast track IDN ccTLD per territory, but only one for each of those and they get to chose which script they want to use, if they want others they have to go through the gTLD process to get it.

The Chair considered this pre-emptive of the topic being discussed.

Janis Karklins agreed the discussion is being pre-emptive, there will be a four hour workshop in New Delhi where the initial report will be discussed and it may be there are no fast track applications at all, there may be a dozen, but let the process go and it will be delivered for consideration by Board in Paris. The Board should be relaxed at this point, to monitor discussion, intervene if feel going in wrong direction and leave the ccNSO and the GAC to come up with decision.

Rita Rodin noted that while not necessarily agreeing with Janis, she does think the fast track was the issue which is why the GNSO asked to add a few more people to the working group, the concern being that the fast track process is going to facilitate a land grab at this juncture. We need to let the working group do its work but more clarification is needed. She is encouraged that the groups will meet in New Delhi but feels the Board should acknowledge receipt of the letter and feels it is very important that the issue has been raised and the Board looks forward to the outcome in New Delhi.

Bruce Tonkin drew the Board's attention to a number of inter-dependencies, namely the IDN fast track process, the new gTLD process, and the ccNSO PDP. The first decision on what is included in the fast track will impact on what is available in the new gTLD round and there is a concern there will be a land grab of space. The concern on the ccNSO side is if the fast track is very limited and a small set of nominated names are identified, the GNSO may go on some land grab. Also need to be careful whatever you do in the first round of gTLDs as this needs to take into account the ccPDP process so it may be necessary to confine some names. There are also differences in the contractual framework between gTLDs and ccTLDs, which create the potential for inequities.

The Chair agreed to acknowledge the letters the question is how much further do we go? Rita and Janis are encouraging them to dialogue at meeting. The Chair advised against running the issues together. The ccPDP can be used to address the question the GNSO is asking, asking in a kind of a way the GNSO is asking, where does this fit. We should let the ccPDP solve that and encourage dialogue in New Delhi, at the same time we want to be careful to send a signal that the fast track will be looked at very carefully but not draw too much attention to possible limits before the process concludes. The Chair suggested that the Board acknowledge the letter and encourage dialogue but not go much further than that at this point. Jean-Jacques Subrenat suggested that the minutes or any response would state that the Board would read the conclusions coming out of that meeting and work on the issues.

The Chair indicated that he did not consider it necessary to have a formal resolution and asked John Jeffrey if he could record the discussion in sufficient detail for the purposes of the Minutes. John Jeffrey advised that it could be noted clearly in the minutes, without any action being taken by the Board.

[jacksonm]

They are waiting for somebody to apply a bit more palm grease.

.

[zorglub]

OMG you talk about a process ! Thanks for the info ! Now I'm letting you analyse it

[Rubber Duck]

http://www.idnforums.com/forums/1658...e-another.html

I guess the answer to my question is yes then?

[bwhhisc]

Originally Posted by jacksonm

They are waiting for somebody to apply a bit more palm grease.

Seems they are getting ready to lay down rule # 1- only one idn.idn per country.

Sure wish someone would mention idn.com is online and working today.

[Rubber Duck]

Look! If Verisign and the other big gTLD registries are seen grovelling around in the dirt trying to gouge the eyes out of the ccTLD registries, then the ASCII crowd are likely to get the message that something is at stake here!

[261275]

GNSO Recommendations on New gTLDs

Kurt Pritz advised that the paper described the recent accomplishments by staff for the Board to review and there is a list of papers to facilitate the Board discussion. We're going to continue to provide the papers to the Board and reformulate those with a view to providing similar information to the community. There is also a technical paper to be released. Staff considers that the task is to clarify these issues for the Board and in the Executive Committee meeting staff developed a matrix to compartmentalize all of the issues. It will describe the implementability of each and accomplishments against the schedule. We think that compartmentalizing issues in that way will crystallize into four or five recommendations that require discussion and can be discussed in one or two meetings in digestible formats.

Susan Crawford acknowledged the hard work done on implementation. With regard to the tricky moral, public policy and rights of individuals she voiced concern that these recommendations are unworkable. She advised that she will continue expressing those concerns and asked if the Board will be voting on the recommendations as a package or will the recommendations be considered one by one when it comes to voting.

Rita Rodin advised that there had been a discussion about this by the Executive Committee, and the Board passed a resolution to develop papers on implementation. We now have papers prepared by Kurt and staff, but we're still not coming up with the complete picture on the workability of issues. What we heard at the Executive Committee level was a series of positions from the staff with Paul's input and the Board will discuss these together.

The Chair raised two concerns: with regard to publicity, the Board needs to make clear where we are in terms of investigating implementation. The decision in Los Angeles was to investigate implementation before adopting the policy. We need to keep the GNSO and the rest of the community informed and that's where the matrix idea came from. Second thing is when do we get to grips, as a Board, on an issue-by-issue basis.

Paul Twomey advised that a group of staff spent considerable time on this recently and there are a number of inter-related issues and if you take a position on one it potentially effects two or three other recommendations. Staff is working hard on what are the implementation issues and intend to bring them to the Board as a whole to get a sense of the effects. He is not against point-by-point consideration by the Board, but suggested it would be better to have the discussion as a piece of the whole.

The Chair reflected that it would be difficult if we get a package and can't change it because if you do the ball will unravel. He asked if there is a point where we need to go back to the GNSO to change policy, or is that actually happening.

Paul Twomey advised that he expected that the community could respond to proposed implementation, whether it goes back to the GNSO he is not sure. Understanding the point the Chair is making, he reflected that he's not saying to take it as a whole, but just wanted the Board to be aware that there are interdependencies. What is clear is that he feels it would be difficult for the Board to approve policy without seeing the difficulties of implementation; they need to be seen together.

Rita Rodin agreed that it is a chicken and egg scenario and we need to understand on the whole what's implementable. It would be possible to consult with the GNSO if the staff suggests some aspects are weak.

Bruce Tonkin suggested that the Board should try to allocate a chunk of time in New Delhi to discuss the contentious issues so the Board is aware of the considerations. He considered that if consistent with policy recommendations but staff proposed a specific implementation it is a public comment process rather than GNSO formal response; if we want to change a policy recommendation we would need to consult the GNSO more formally.

The Chair noted what Paul and Kurt have said during the discussion but will not be able to take this issue further at this time.

[Rubber Duck]

What I don't get is why they can't just come up with a list! Come on, we all know what we are expecting to see. Why is it so f*cking complicated?

[thefabfive]

At least they acknowledged receipt of the letter. Whew. That was touch and go there for a while.

[Drewbert]

Originally Posted by zorglub

Now I'm letting you analyse it

I'll pass on that, thanks.

[261275]

Our patience will achieve more than our force.
Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)

OR

A handful of patience is worth more than a bushel of brains.
Dutch Proverb

You choose

[Drewbert]

Exactly.

Sit back and wait to see what's what once the dust settles.

[Rubber Duck]

It strikes me that now the knives are out, we are about to get some clarity that has been distinctly lacking. Somebody is going to have to stop talking bollocks and state what they mean.

[mdw]

Thanks for posting this Drewbert. Even if nobody can predict the future based on this, it's one more shred of data to chew on.

[Alphamale]

-[At the PFJ Headquarters a meeting is underway]

REG (PFJ leader)
Right, now, eh. Item four: attainment of world supremacy within the next five years. Eh, Francis, you've been doing some work on this.

FRANCIS
Yeah, thank you, Reg. Well, quite frankly, siblings, I think five years is optimistic, unless we can smash the Roman Empire within the next twelve months.

REG
Twelve months?

FRANCIS
Yeah. Twelve months. And let's face it... as empires go, this is the big one, so we've got to get up off our arses, and stop just talking about it.

PFJ
Hear, hear!

LORETTA
I agree. Its action that counts, not words, and we need action now.

PFJ
Hear, hear!

REG
You're right. We could sit around here all day talking, passing resolutions, making clever speeches; it's not going to shift one Roman soldier.

FRANCIS
So let's just stop gabbing on about it, it's completely pointless, and it's getting us nowhere.

PFJ
Right!

LORETTA
I agree. This is a complete waste of time.

--[Judith runs in, panicked.]

JUDITH
They've arrested Brian!!

PFJ
What?

JUDITH
They've dragged him off. They're going to crucify him.

REG
Right! This calls for immediate discussion!

JUDITH
What?!?

REGULAR
Immediate.

DIET
Right.

LORETTA
New motion?

REG
Completely new motion; Eh, That, ah; That there be, ah, immediate action...

FRANCIS
... ah, once the vote has been taken.

REG
Well, obviously once the vote has been taken, you can't act on a resolution 'till you've voted on it!

JUDITH
Reg, for God's sake, let's go now, please!

REG
Yeah, yeah; Right, right… In the, in the light of fresh information from, ah, sibling Judith…

LORETTA
[taking notes] Ah, not so fast, Reg.

JUDITH
Reg, for God's sake, it's perfectly simple… All you've got to do is to go out of that door now, and try to stop the Romans nailing him up. Its happening, Reg! Something's actually HAPPENING, Reg! Can't you understand? Yaaargh! [She rushes out in a rage.]

FRANCIS
Oh… Oh, dear.

REG
Hello... and a little ego-trip for the feminists.

LORETTA
What?

REG
Ah, oh, sorry, Loretta. Ah, read that back, would you?

--[Brian proceeds to get crucified… the end]

So what is the point of this… simple, I am telling you that time is running out… “this is the big one, so we've got to get up off our arses, and stop just talking about it.”

[bwhhisc]

Quote:
Steve Goldstein advised that all he would vote for is to approve one fast track IDN ccTLD per territory,
but only one for each of those and they get to chose which script they want to use, if they want others
they have to go through the gTLD process to get it.

[sbe18]

is the conflict with regard to scripts a conflict of Iran vs Arabic speaking nations,
and India & Pakistan conflict with regard to Urdu ?

which nations are in conflict here ??? China , Japan, and Korea seem to have resolved most issues so far......


is Canadian Quebec and France having a snit as well ???? (grin)

Who are the nations in panic mode here ?

thanks....

Steve

[bwhhisc]

Originally Posted by sbe18

is the conflict with regard to scripts a conflict of Iran vs Arabic speaking nations, and India & Pakistan conflict with regard to Urdu ?
which nations are in conflict here ??? China , Japan, and Korea seem to have resolved most issues so far......is Canadian Quebec and France having a snit as well ???? (grin) Who are the nations in panic mode here ?
thanks....Steve

France and other European countries will use .com, .net, along with their country codes .fr, .de, etc. at their main extensions.

Countries that share common languages with others will need to sort out what extensions they will be granted. This could dilute keywords across many different countries new idn.idn extensions. What most IDN holders hope will happen is that for in these situations idn.com becomes the premium name across all the languages for key terms.

It is not yet known if Verisign will choose to alias .com to the equivalent foreign word for .com, .net etc. but this is a possiblity. It has been made pretty clear that ICANN is protecting Verisign and will insure that no one else can use any terms that equal .com, .net or are strikingly or confusingly similar.

[domain_trader]

Originally Posted by bwhhisc

It is not yet known if Verisign will choose to alias .com to the equivalent foreign word for .com, .net etc. but this is a possiblity. It has been made pretty clear that ICANN is protecting Verisign and will insure that no one else can use any terms that equal .com, .net or are strikingly or confusingly similar.

But we don't know if ICANN is just interested in protecting the gTLDs from user confusion or is leaving the door open for Verisign to go global - we are no closer to an answer on this.

One thing is clear - ICANN are intent on letting the ccTLDs have first crack. Given the complications involved, this is probably a wise move. Verisign I suspect might also be keen to see how it plays out a bit before they make a move. Personally, I wish they would just get on with it.

[rhys]

Is it just me or are these guys just incapable of describing things in understandable english? What the f*ck do all these words put together mean. Is .jp aliased with .日本 or not b*tches. seriously.