[alac] FW: [council] Redrafted IDN ToR

[Bret Fausett <bfausett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----Original Message-----
From: "Olof Nordling" <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 8/4/06 8:44 AM
Subject: [council] Redrafted IDN ToR

Dear Councilors and colleagues,

As requested at the Council call yesterday, following the Council's
deliberations on the IDN Terms of Reference, I have consolidated the
proposed changes in the drafting below. The former ToR 1 and 5 a,c,d have
been moved as considerations to the preamble section and a new ToR 1 covers
a) PDP timeline adaptation and b) interaction. I hope this properly reflects
the meeting outcome and I look forward to any comments.

Very best regards

Olof

 

PS. In view of the questions for clarification during the call, some
rephrasing of the former ToR 5 a-d could also be envisaged. Not done in the
version below, though.  

 

 

 

Preamble

The following terms of reference for further work are focused on GNSO
activities and therefore address gTLD considerations. Subsequent to working
group assessment of the Preliminary Issues Report, the terms of reference
were adopted by the GNSO Council on xx August 2006. In addition, the GNSO
Council resolved that policy development activities relating to the
introduction of generic Top-Level Domains with IDN Labels (IDN-gTLDs) shall
be guided by the following considerations:

 

           I.     Given the urgency of current interest in fully localized
domain names, and the limited range of potential outcomes of the impending
technical tests of devices for entering top-level IDN labels into the root
zone, the policy for the inclusion of IDN-gTLDs can begin to be assessed.

 

         II.     Policy development will proceed under the assumption that
top-level IDN labels will be added to the root zone, awaiting the outcome of
the requisite initial trials.

 

       III.     Determining that a proposed new IDN label is adequately
differentiated from a pre-existing label requires comparison in graphic,
phonetic, and semantic terms.  Two levels of differentiation are necessary,
of which the one pertains to situations where the two labels are being
considered for delegation to the same operator, and the other where the
labels are to be delegated to independent registries.  The former case can
be further subdivided into two situations.  In the one, the intention is for
the same set of sub-domain names to appear under multiple TLD labels, and in
the other independent name trees are to be established.

 

       IV.     It is necessary to be particularly mindful of detail which,
although initially considered in the IDN context, may otherwise be relevant
to the New gTLD PDP. The association of two separate labels with the same
TLD is an example of this, given that the linguistic justification for such
action can as easily be derived from two languages that can be adequately
represented using ASCII characters as it can from a situation where one or
both labels require IDN representation.

 

         V.     The implementation of policies based on an aliasing
mechanism (as implicit in III above) may require the development of new
technical resources if the tests of the currently available alternatives (as
referenced in I above) determine that none are viable. In general, care
should be taken to recognize distinctions between technical and policy
concerns, as well as cultural and political considerations. Addressing their
manifold interdependencies should be approached as collaborative action with
other organizations as appropriate to any given case.

 

       VI.     In view of the complexities and interdependencies involved in
the policy development task, the pre-determined standard PDP timeline must
be adapted to allow sufficient time for all the necessary activities and
interaction steps.  

 

 

Terms of Reference

 

1. Initial and General Provisions

 

a. As an initial task, in line with Consideration VI above, plan the
necessary activities and interaction steps for this PDP in cooperation with
ICANN staff and develop a suitable timeline for the PDP.

 

b. In general, during this PDP, identify and document any policy issue for
which it is essential that policy is harmonized for all IDN-TLDs and develop
the related policy for IDN-gTLDs in interaction with other relevant
entities, including other ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory
Committees, in a way that ensures harmonization of the policy outcome. 

 

2. Selection Criteria for Top-Level Domains with IDN Labels

 

a. Taking into account the background, considerations and findings regarding
selection criteria in the New gTLD PDP [PDP-Dec05], develop modified or
additional criteria for the inclusion of IDN labels in subsequent action
toward ICANN's goals of expanding the use and usability of the Internet.

 

3. Allocation Methods for Top-Level Domains with IDN Labels

 

a. Taking into account the background, considerations and findings regarding
allocation methods in the New gTLD PDP [PDP-Dec05], develop modified or
additional allocation methods that may be applied to gTLDs with IDN labels.

 

4. Policy to Guide Contractual Conditions for Top-Level Domains with IDN

Labels

 

a. Taking into account the background, considerations and findings regarding
contractual conditions in the New gTLD PDP [PDP-Dec05], develop policies to
guide the specific contractual criteria needed for gTLDs with IDN labels, to
be made publicly available prior to any application rounds.

 

5. Additional Policy Aspects Regarding Top-Level Domains with IDN

Labels

 

a. With specific regard to Consideration III above, determine whether the
script used for an IDN-gTLD label can, or should, be exclusively propagated
on all lower levels in the sub-domain tree (allowing for the general
exceptions attaching to that script as referenced in the ICANN IDN
Guidelines). If such a procedure is viable, intention to implement it may
serve as a differentiation criterion or otherwise be invoked in the
consideration of a request for a new label.