Staff review of the received comments and next steps
Dear All, first of all we would like to thank all of you that participated in the public comment forum and/or in the webinars. Such quick and engaged actions from the community was very helpful to staff and much appreciated. It further showed us the importance that the subject matter at hand is, to large parts of the community. Attached is a summary of all the received comments and the staff feedback and reactions to them. As to the next steps, the proposed plan for synchronized IDN ccTLDs and the continued work on this subject matter was in front of the ICANN Board at their 22 April 2010 meeting. As can be seen in the archives for this meeting, http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-22apr10-en.htm , the Board did not resolve a proposed resolution regarding the continued work in this area. At the same time the Board did resolve that the CNNIC and TWNIC requests move on to the String Delegation step in the Fast Track Process http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-22apr10-en.htm#synchronized . Part of these latter resolutions stated that "the methodology to be taken by the IDN ccTLD manager to handle these particular instances of parallel IDN ccTLDs is, in the short-term, the only option available, but there are serious limits to where such an approach is viable in practice, so that it cannot be viewed as a general solution, and that consequently, long-term development work should be pursued;". As such, staff will consult with the ICANN Board working group for the subject (the ES-WG<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#12>) on the next steps for the plan for introduction of synchronized IDN ccTLDs. In the ongoing work, the received comments will be taken into consideration and changes will be made in accordance with the attached paper. Further, it may be of value to re-state here, what has been expressed through the webinars and various email/blog lists, that the ongoing work at least must include: * Definition of what exactly it is that is being sought by a "variant solution". What is the desired behavior of variants in all cases? * Definition of the different types of variants - which may inform the answers to 1). * Review and test of DNAME as a technical solution, and its adequacy to achieve variant TLD management. * Review/test of BNAME as a technical solution, and its adequacy to achieve variant TLD management. It is noted that the BNAME proposal is rather new and currently exist as an Internet Draft in the IETF. * Review/test of variant management via procedures and registration policies. This based on the experience with the Synchronized IDN ccTLDs. Kind regards, Tina Tina Dam Senior Director IDNs Mobile: +1-310-862-2026 Voice: +1-310-301-5838 ICANN | 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 | Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 Attachment:
2010-04-28-Sync-Public-Comment-Analysis.pdf |