[Fwd: Re: [council] Final Proposed version 2.0 of IDN Guidelines posted]

[Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I hadn't realized that the comment forum had been re-opened earlier when 
I posted this to council. I forward it now for your consideration.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] Final Proposed version 2.0 of IDN Guidelines posted
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 14:19:30 -0500
From: Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
Organization: Tucows Research & Innovation
To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
CC: Michael D. Palage <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>,  council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
References: <00a501c5e425$a9db1f80$6501a8c0@dnsconundrum> 
<ACA9946D-E4A1-44DF-B041-296ED6664B42@xxxxxxx>

I've missed the boat on the public comment period, so I would expect
these concerns are moot as it relates to the board's consideration of
the document.

However for those that might be interested, I wanted to express the
concern that these "guidelines" are moving substantial policy making
responsibilities from the GNSO to the gTLD administrators. This scope of
policy responsibility is only suitable in the ccTLD context. Given the
authorship, I am not surprised that this was written up in this fashion.
I still have faint hope that the board sees fit to clean up this issue
prior to endorsing the document as an acceptable set of guidelines.

This comment pertains to guideline six specifically, which reads:

"6. Top-level domain registries will work collaboratively with relevant
stakeholders to develop IDN-specific registration policies, with the
objective of achieving consistent approaches to IDN implementation for
the benefit of DNS users worldwide. Top-level domain registries will
work collaboratively with each other to address common issues, for
example by forming or appointing a consortium to coordinate contact with
external communities, elicit the assistance of support groups, and
establish global
fora."

There is also a larger policy issue which has not been dealt with at any
level, which I had hoped would have been clarified through this process,
which is the extent to which the relationship between ICANN and the gTLD
administrators permits the registries to arbitrarily offer these types
of services. I am not sure whether or not it would be appropriate for
the registry constituency to address this in the context of IDNs, but
this should have been explicitly addressed prior to this work being
undertaken.

-ross


Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I did not understand, so only the draft needs an open comment period and 
> not the final version with comments included.  Is that the normal process?
>
> thanks for the reply.
> a.
>
> On 7 nov 2005, at 21.31, Michael D. Palage wrote:
>
> > Avri,
> >
> > This is a topic for potential resolution during tomorrow's Board call.
> > The original draft IDN Guidelines were endorsed by the Board back I
> > believe in June. In the briefing documents provided to the Board from
> > staff we have been advised that there was a public comment period, see
> > http://forum.icann.org/lists/idn-guidelines/.
> >
> > Based upon this public comment the registry working group published a
> > final draft of the IDN Guidelines that incorporated that commentary.
> >
> > It is my opinion that the necessary public consultation has occurred and
> > I am inclined to vote in favor of adopting these resolution tomorrow if
> > presented with a resolution, although I will not make a final
> > determination until hearing the staff briefing and my fellow directors
> > discussion.
> >
> > In connection with the reviewing of the Board briefing documents, I have
> > also consulted with Cary Karp to better understand the issues.
> >
> > So I hope that answers your question, and shed a little light on the
> > homework the Board has to do prior to our calls :-)
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Michael D. Palage
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 12:20 AM
> > To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [council] Final Proposed version 2.0 of IDN Guidelines
> > posted
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Are these guidelines going to go through the normal open review
> > period before the board endorses it?  Or has that already happened?
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > a.
> >
> > On 7 nov 2005, at 19.54, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Tina Dam
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 8 November 2005 5:40 AM
> > > Subject: Final Proposed version 2.0 of IDN Guidelines posted
> > >
> > > Today's IDN status Update includes the posting of the IDN revision
> > > working groups proposed final version of the IDN Guidelines. Please
> > > note
> > > that this still is pending ICANN Board endorsement before it may be
> > > considered the final version 2.0.
> > >
> > > Along with this, an overview of the actions taken by the working group
> >
> >
> > > in response to the comment received on the initially proposed draft
> > > has
> > > been posted.
> > >
> > > http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-07nov05.htm
> > >
> > > Please keep in mind that the IDN forum is still open for the continued
> >
> >
> > > IDN discussions. And please don't hesitate to contact me for any
> > > questions.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Tina Dam
> > > Chief gTLD Registry Liaison
> > > ICANN