> 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 <[log in to unmask]> >> Date: January 8, 2008 8:50:02 PM PST >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Cc: Peter Dengate Thrush <[log in to unmask]>, John Jeffrey >> <[log in to unmask]>, Denise Michel <[log in to unmask]>, >> Council GNSO <[log in to unmask]>, Chris Disspain >> <[log in to unmask]> >> 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: [log in to unmask]