[Fwd: Re: [council] Final Proposed version 2.0 of IDN Guidelines posted]
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>
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.
Avri Doria wrote: