ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Staff review of the received comments and next steps

  • To: "sync-idn-cctlds@xxxxxxxxx" <sync-idn-cctlds@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Staff review of the received comments and next steps
  • From: Tina Dam <tina.dam@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:49:19 -0700

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 

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 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
Description: 2010-04-28-Sync-Public-Comment-Analysis.pdf

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy