ICANN Nairobi

[Drewbert]

ICANN's public forum has just finished.


Not much on the entire Agenda at all regarding IDN's.

But this comment late in the public forum caught my eye...

####

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Steve.
>>STEVE DELBIANCO: Steve Delbianco of NetChoice. Comment
on the economic studies that are currently being planned.
There isThere's a saying that the more you try to resist
something, the more you conform to it. And I think the same
could be troupe of Bertrand's push for categories, the more
we try to resist that idea, it's clear we've already conformed
to categories on the G side with respect to things like
IDNs, communities, geographical, and, of course, all other
Gs.
The first set of economic studies ignoreed the categories
idea and said choice is good, so more choice must be better
for global registrants. But if you take a look at the
categories underway now, which of those four categories that
we love are already being underserved? And you can take a
look at small geographical communities. But the most underserved
is IDN users. They have no choice at the TLD level. So if
you take a look at incremental benefit to individual
registrants, it's going to be the gTLDs and IDNs. And
it will be essential to serve them if we're really going to
meet the test of global public interest. Thank you.

####

[phio]

Part of Tina's presentation on Wednesday:

icann nairobi

"IDN ccTLD Fast Track Status
Successfully launched 16 November 2010
100% up-time and no technical issues
Total of 19 requests received so far
–4 requests has successfully passed String Evaluation and are now going through String Delegation
–15 requests are actively being processed
–Spam requests are not calculated in stats
Requests span over 11 languages
Requests are kept confidential
–Per the Fast Track Process requirements"

From the meeting ICANN board meeting today:

>>ROD BECKSTROM: Thank you very much, Peter.
...
"Second, IDN ccTLD Fast Track process. We've received four
additional applications for string evaluation, awaiting the DNS
stability panel's report on the most recent submissions, and
expecting to have additional strings successfully complete the string
evaluation process by the end of March.

The first four IDN strings passing string evaluation are still in
the process of delegation request."

...



>>THOMAS NARTEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Whereas, public comment
has indicated that the requirement for gTLD strings to be at least
three characters would limit the utility of IDN gTLDs in some regions
of the world. Whereas, the GNSO IDN working group previously
recommended that applications for fewer than three-character gTLDs
were allowed in the gTLD program based on a case by case evaluation.

Whereas an independent IDN implementation support team was formed as
a result of discussion during the meeting in Sydney, Australia to
assist in implementation of a set of rules that could be employed to
allocate IDN strings of fewer than three characters where appropriate.

Whereas the team completed its work and published a recommendation
for relaxing the three-character requirement in a report for public
comment that included specific requirements for when two-character
gTLDs can be delegated and deferred the notion of one-character gTLDs
pending policy issues.

Whereas, a number of thoughtful public comments have been received.
And whereas a model for implementing the team's recommendation in the
new gTLD program has also been posted for public comment.

Resolved, ICANN shall take into account remaining public comments on
the proposed model and develop a final proposal to be included in
draft version 4 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook.

Whereas, subject to any amendments in response to public comment,
the board supports the substantive content of the model that was
posted on February 15, 2010 for public comment and expects that it
will be included in version 4 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook.

Resolved, ICANN thanks those members of the community who have
devoted their time and energy to advancing this aspect of trademark
rights protection.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Thomas. Is there a seconder
for that? I see Dennis.

Anyone wish to speak to this resolution?

No?

All right. Let's put that to a vote. All those in favor, please
raise your hands.

Thank you.

Rita, are you voting?

>>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: In favor, please.

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

Any abstentions? Carried unanimously.

Let's move, then, to item 10 which is in relation to IDN variants,
and we have the ability to call on some technical expertise. I will
ask Dr. Crocker to take us through this one.

>>STEVE CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is the first of
three related resolutions, 10, 12, and 13 -- not 11 -- related to
IDNs and related topics.

Resolution 10, IDN variants.

Whereas, language communities that use variant characters are
affected by the management and implementation of variants in new TLDs.

Whereas, an implementation IDN -- an independent, excuse me.

Whereas an independent IDN implementation support team was formed as
a result of discussions alt the ICANN meeting in Sydney, Australia,
to make recommendations for managing IDN variants at the top level.

Whereas, the IDN implementation support team has completed its work
and published its recommendations in a report for public comment and
recommends that ICANN is to study the usability of the DNAME resource
record as part of a supported mechanism for managing TLD strings
containing variants.

Whereas, the variant approach used in the IDN ccTLD fast track is
consistent with the team's recommendations.

Whereas a model for implementing the recommendations of the IDN
implementation support team for allocation or reservation of desired
variant TLDs, pending identification of a mechanism for delegation
and management of the variant TLDs in the new gTLD program, has been
posted for comment.

Resolved, ICANN shall take into account remaining public comments on
the proposed model and based on such comments develop a proposal to
be included in version 4 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook.

Resolved, the board tasks the ICANN CEO to undertake a study on the
usability of the DNAME resource record as part of the supported
mechanism for managing TLD strings containing variants.

Resolved, ICANN thanks those members of the community who have
devoted their time and energy to the work on these issues, and urges
the community to collaborate on the ongoing testing of variant
mechanisms."

[phio]

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
occur;

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.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Ram.

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.

>>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?

>>HARALD ALVESTRAND: Yes, please.

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.

Okay.

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.

>>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.

>>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?

>>SUZANNE WOOLF: I am.

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.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Ram.

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 http://nbo.icann.org/nbo/documents?tid[]=354