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:
Date: January 8, 2008 8:50:02 PM PST
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