From: Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>Date: February 16, 2008 8:57:20 PM PSTSubject: [council] IDN TLDs and Board Motion 2008.02.15.11Hi,I just wanted to write a short public note to personally thank Susan Crawford for her difficult vote on Board Motion 2008.02.15.11. The way the motion was worded it was hard to vote against, after all, who could be against dialogue? However, what I believe was hidden in this motion was rejection of the GNSO's position regarding the importance of separate community wide understanding the classification, or allotment by any other name, of TLDs which was contained in the GNSO council's request to the Board. I personally see Susan's vote as support for the GNSO position that the entire names community needs to be involved in the process.With this motion, I believe that any hope we may have had for a parallel process is now in the past. I believe we must make the best of the opportunities we will have to comment on, and be part of, the ccNSO and GAC processes to establish a de-facto classification among IDN TLDs and to create a fair playing ground for all IDN TLDs.Thanks Susan.a.
ICANN Board Resolution 2008.02.15.11:
Whereas, the ICANN Board created the "IDNC Working Group" on 2 November 2007 to develop and report on feasible methods for timely introduction of a limited number of internationalised country code top-level domain names (IDN ccTLDs associated with ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes) in a manner that ensures the continued security and stability of the Internet.
Whereas, on 1 February 2008, the IDNC Working Group posted a "Discussion Draft of the Initial Report," which includes principles and methods for developing the so-called "fast-track" approach, for consideration and input from the public.
Resolved (2008.02.15.11), the Board expresses its gratitude to the IDNC Working Group for its Draft Initial Report, and to the GNSO, ccNSO, GAC, and ALAC for their ongoing collaborative efforts and commitment to recommend a course of action to the ICANN Board in a timely manner.