ALAC/NCUC Joint Meeting

12 February 2008

Summary Minutes

NOTE: Meeting Minutes are in draft form until adopted by the Committee

Present (ALAC): C Aguirre, J Salgueiro, A Greenberg, V Cretu, X Hong, C Langdon-Orr, B Brendler, V Scartezini, I Aizu, W Ludwig, A Muehlberg

Present (NCUC): N Klein, R Gross,

Observers: J Morris, E Leibovitch, X Hong, D Farrar

The Meeting was brought to order at 16:35

C Aguirre noted that Domain Tasting was a major issue in the GNSO and suggested that we could start with that issue.

R Gross noted that it was not expected that a GNSO council vote would be held on the issue during New Delhi, though it was not beyond possibility.

A Greenberg provided a brief historical overview of Domain Tasting, current registry proposals related to the AGP, and ICANN activities to date, with particular focus on the latest funnel proposals. He noted that there seemed to be general consensus that Domain Tasting was not beneficial, but there was not consensus on what to do about it.

A Liebovitch reinforced the point that NARALO agreed strongly with the perspective that Domain Tasting was harmful.

D Farrar endorsed the comments about the AGP. It was a well-intentioned policy which had enormous unintended consequences. Getting rid of the AGP seems more useful than attempting to simply attach more rules to avoid the bad effects.

R Gross said that NCUC believes that the AGP needs to be curtailed, as do other constituencies, but there is less clarity on what to do about it. It is thought that complete elimination seems politically impossible due to registrar and registry opposition.

A number of comments were received suggesting that a politically possible result that helped resolve the problem was better than purity of purpose with no resolution.

C Aguirre asked a question about the NCUC’s views on Domain Tasting with respect to trademark protection.

R Gross noted that originally NCUC had viewed the elimination of the AGP as a benefit to trademark holders but over time had taken the view that the other aspects of the issue were much more important.

D Farrar noted that he was concerned about the use of the grace period by registrars to register a name searched for by a potential customer before the customer could complete the registration.

E Leibovitch asked what the defense of the AGP from the NCUC’s perspective was.

R Gross said that she didn’t believe that the NCUC disagreed with the perspective that the AGP should be eliminated.

A Muehlberg said she believed that there was a lot of agreement between the At-Large and the NCUC on Domain Tasting.

C Aguirre wondered if it was possible to have a joint position on this and asked if the Chair of the GNSO Council wished to speak on the matter.

A Greenberg noted the reference to D Farrar’s comment and that the NSI implementation is so outrageous it should never had seen the light of day.

A Doria noted that she was unclear what question she had been asked to answer.

R Gross asked A Doria if there would be a vote on Domain Tasting.

A Doria replied that she thinks probably not.

R Gross noted that in her experience that the progress on Domain Tasting was far faster than on any previous issue.

C Aguirre hoped that we could in future avoid disagreements by continuing to meet and discuss matters regularly.

N Klein suggested a discussion of the GNSO Improvements.

X Hong asked what the view of the NCUC was on Fast Track IDN introduction.

R Gross said the introduction of IDN TLDs was a wonderful thing but there was some NCUC concern about governmental oversight and control.

N Klein noted that he thought there would not be large numbers of new registrations for IDN TLDs but just a few. It would be a problem if there were an arbitrary limit of only one TLD per country as some countries have more than one official language and therefore more than one script is possible.

X Hong welcomed the positive view expressed.

R Gross said that the idea that more people could get online was a persuasive argument for IDN TLDs.

X Hong reminded everyone that the point of the fast track process was to move forward with widely recognised TLDs that were in clear demand. She noted that at the IDNC meeting C Disspain said that in a survey of 224 ccTLD managers, only 24 wanted to have an IDN TLD in the fast track.

A Muehlberg noted that it was not practical to try and resolve every issue in advance – moving forward and trying a few TLDs was really worthwhile and then it was possible to evaluate whether application-level issues must be taken into account before further IDN TLD implementations.

C Aguirre and C Langdon-Orr thanked all for participating.

The meeting was adjourned at 17:32

  • No labels