Why are you insisting of having an agreement?

["Abdulaziz Al-Zoman" <azoman@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

ICANN has published an updated version of the draft Implementation plan 

for IDN ccTLDs fast track:

 
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/draft-implementation-plan-
cctld-clean-19feb09-en.pdf

 

 

It includes a reference to a proposed Documentation of Responsibility,

which is the agreement that states responsibilities of both the ccTLD

registry and ICANN:

 
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/proposed-implementation-de
tails-dor-18feb09-en.pdf

 

This has been done despite the many comments against this direction

from different communities, e.g., GAC, APTLD, Arab Team and other

ccTLDs. Here are some quotations from their positions:

 

GAC:  http://gac.icann.org/web/communiques/gac33com.pdf

-------------------------------------------------------

    7.1. Relationship between ICANN and IDN ccTLD Operator

      * IDN ccTLDs should be similarly treated as ASCII ccTLDs.

      * The GAC emphasizes that it is primarily for the local 

        Internet community, including the relevant government 

        or public authority, to determine the manner in which 

        a string should be selected, the manner in which a 

        registry operator should be selected and the registry

        policy that should apply for the selected IDN ccTLD.

      * A documented relationship between ICANN and IDN ccTLD 

        operators should be kept voluntary.

      * A documented relationship on the basis of the proposed

        "Documentation of Responsibilities", either as it stands

        today or in a modified format, may be encouraged but 

        should not be a condition for IDN ccTLD delegations.

      * As it has always been the case, it's in the best 

        interest of IDN ccTLD operators and the entire IDN 

        community to adhere to all relevant IETF standards 

        including IDNA protocol, IDN Guidelines and commit to 

        complying with future protocol updates.

 

 

APTLD:   http://forum.icann.org/lists/ft-implementation/msg00008.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------

    I. APTLD Overarching Position

 

    APTLD sees the delegation of IDN ccTLDs in the same light as

    existing ccTLDs - they are for the local communities to operate

    for their own communities use - the only significant difference

    is that the IDN ccTLD finally provides a facility for people to

    completely use the Internet in their own language or script.

    Otherwise, we see no change in the status quo relationship 

    from the existing ccTLDs.

 

    1) Relationship between ICANN and the IDN ccTLD Operator

 

    a.  A voluntary, documented relationship is available between 

        the IDN ccTLD Operator and ICANN - just as it is available

        to existing ccTLDs.  This could take the form of a contract,

        an accountability framework, an exchange of letters or some

        other vehicle deemed appropriate by ICANN and the ccTLD

        Manager.

 

    b.  For those operators who, for whatever reason, do not want

        to exchange documents with ICANN, a commitment to the 

        stability and security of the Internet, including compliance

        with the IDNA Guidelines and Protocols, should be sufficient.

 

 

Arab Team:  http://forum.icann.org/lists/ft-implementation/msg00011.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------

    Overarching Position

  

    The Arab Team for Domain Names joins the position of APTLD as it

    sees the delegation of IDN ccTLDs in the same light as existing

    ccTLDs - they are for the local communities to operate for their

    own communities use - the only significant difference is that the

    IDN ccTLD finally provides a facility for people to completely 

    use the Internet in their own language or script.  Otherwise, 

    we see no change in the status quo relationship from the existing

    ccTLDs.

 

    Critical Point

 

    Agreements between ICANN and IDN ccTLD operator should not be 

    made a condition for IDN ccTLDs delegation Module 7 - 

    Section 7.1: Relationship between ICANN and IDN ccTLD operator

    o   It is important to ensure ongoing compliance with the IDN

        technical standards, including IDNA protocol and IDN 

        guidelines and operators must commit to technical 

        compliance from a pure technical point of view. 

    o   IDN ccTLD operators may be encouraged to sign framework

        agreement with ICANN yet, same as with ASCII ccTLDs, 

        agreements should be kept voluntary and should not be 

        made a condition for IDN ccTLDs delegation.  

    o   Posting of a template of such an agreement may guide the

        decision of IDN ccTLD operator.

    o   Government support should be sought before entering into 

        such agreements.

 

 

SaudiNIC (.sa ccTLD) position is in agreement with the above positions:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/ft-implementation/msg00014.html:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------

    We see the delegation of IDN ccTLDs in the same light as 

    existing ccTLDs - they are for the local communities to

    operate for their own communities use. The only significant

    difference is that the IDN ccTLD provides a facility

    for local users to completely use the Internet in their 

    own language.  Otherwise, we see no change in the status

    quo relationship from the existing ccTLDs. Hence, an 

    agreements between ICANN and IDN ccTLD operator should not 

    be made a condition for IDN ccTLDs delegation. 

 

    There should be a voluntary, documented relationship be 

    available between the IDN ccTLD Operator and ICANN - just as 

    it is available to existing ccTLDs.  This could take the 

    form of a contract, an accountability framework, an

    exchange of letters or some other vehicle deemed appropriate 

    by ICANN and the ccTLD Manager. 

 

    However, for those operators who, for whatever reason, do not

    want to exchange documents with ICANN, a commitment to the

    stability and security of the Internet, including compliance 

    with the IDNA Guidelines and Protocols, should be sufficient.

 

 

Conclusion:

---------------

    - Why ICANN insists of having an agreement while they got negative 

      (public) comments about it  from many (ccTLDs) communities, 

      particularly, APTLD and Arab League communities as well as 

      government representatives (GAC)?  BTW: these communities 

      are among the most IDN users.

 

 

 

Best regards,

--------------------------------

Abdulaziz H. Al-Zoman

Director of SaudiNIC, CITC

 


Disclaimer:
This message and its attachment, if any, are confidential and may contain 
legally privileged information. If you are not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and delete this 
message and its attachment, if any, from 
your system. You should not copy this message or disclose its contents to any 
other person or use it for any purpose. 
Statements and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender, and 
do not necessarily reflect those of 
Communication and Information Technology Commission (CITC). CITC accepts no 
liability for damage caused by any virus 
transmitted by this email.