1. Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on ‘thick’ Whois
Made by: Stéphane van Gelder
Seconded by: Yoav Keren
Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on ‘thick’ Whois at its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109);
Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on ‘thick’ Whois was posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment
(see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm);
Whereas a Final Issue Report on ‘thick’ Whois was published on 2 February 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf);
Whereas, the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT:
Resolved, the GNSO will initiate a PDP on the issues defined in the Final Issue Report on ‘thick’ Whois
(see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf)
Resolved, a DT will be formed to create a charter for a Working Group, which will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its approval.
Resolved, following the approval of the charter, a Working Group will be created for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP.
2. Motion on the Adoption of the Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation #8
Made by: Yoav Keren
Seconded by: Stéphane van Gelder
WHEREAS on 24 June 2009, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on IRTP Part B addressing the following five charter questions:
a. Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should be developed, as discussed within the SSAC hijacking report (http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf); see also (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm);
b. Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact (AC). The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule the AC, but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of the registrar;
c. Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant when it occurs near the time of a change of registrar. The policy does not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases;
d. Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of a Registrar Lock status (e.g. when it may/may not, should/should not be applied);
e. Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A domain name was already in 'lock status' provided that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status.
WHEREAS this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 30 May 2011;
WHEREAS the IRTP Part B WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the five issues outlined above;
WHEREAS in relation to recommendation #8, the GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 22 June to request ‘ICANN staff to provide a proposal designed to ensure a technically feasible approach can be developed to meet this recommendation. Staff should take into account the IRTP Part B WG deliberations in relation to this issue (see IRTP Part B Final Report). (IRTP Part B Recommendation #8). The goal of these changes is to clarify why the Lock has been applied and how it can be changed. Upon review of the proposed plan, the GNSO Council will consider whether to approve the recommendation’;
WHEREAS ICANN staff developed the proposal in consultation with the IRTP Part B Working Group which was put out for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/irtp-b-staff-proposals-22nov11-en.htm);
WHEREAS no comments were received as part of the public comment forum and the proposal was submitted to the GNSO Council;
WHEREAS on 10 January 2012, the IPC has provided its comments to ICANN staff proposal (as described in http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12555.html );
WHEREAS ICANN staff has provided an updated proposal based on the IPC comments (as described in http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12600.html );
WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed the ICANN Staff proposal in relation to IRTP Part B recommendation #8.
RESOLVED, the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that it adopts and implements IRTP Part B recommendation #8 and the related ICANN Staff updated proposal (as described in
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/irtp-recommendation-8-proposal-26jan12-en.pdf).
............................................................................................................................................................................................................
Item 5:JIG Letter to the Board
1. Proposed Joint letter from the ccNSO and GNSO to the Board (Draft ccNSO to Board Single Character IDN TLD),
To: Chair of the ICANN Board of Directors
Cc: Rod Beckstrom
Dear Steve
In December 2011 both the ccNSO and GNSO Councils discussed the current status of the introduction of Single Character IDN TLDs. Noting the ICANN Board resolution on this topic (1), the discussions were initiated by concerns raised by the joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG).
Following their discussion, both the ccNSO and GNSO Councils reiterate their support for the introduction of Single Character IDN TLD’s. However, the Councils also request further clarification from the Board on three matters.
Firstly, one of the issues raised by the JIG was the ambiguity on the timing of the delegation of Single Character IDN TLDs. According to the August 2011 resolution, the Board: ‘Directs staff to publish a timetable for this work, clearly indicating that processes for delegation of single-character IDN TLDs will be made available after the first gTLD application round and conclusion of IDN ccTLD policy work.’ The ccNSO Council would appreciate clarification on the meaning of the word “and” in the final part of the sentence, in particular whether it should be interpreted as a condition i.e. that both the IDN ccTLD policy development process and new gTLD processes need to have been concluded to allow the introduction of singe character IDN TLDs.
Secondly, the ccNSO and GNSO Councils note that the Board envisioned further consultations with the SSAC, GAC and ALAC, following the submission of ccNSO and GNSO recommendations. It is our understanding that the SSAC has already been consulted and its advice published on 31 January 2012 (2). With regard to the other two consultations, we would appreciate an indication of their current status and associated timelines. We would also appreciate an indication of the steps, when the aforementioned consultations have been completed.
Finally, it is our understanding that concerns have been raised regarding the kind of script that will be used for the Single Character IDN TLDs. In particular, whether a pictographic or alphabetic script makes a difference, and these concerns are an additional factor. We would appreciate if the Board could indicate whether or not this understanding is correct.
Looking forward to your response,
Kind regards,
Lesley Cowley OBE Stephane van Gelder,
Chair of the ccNSO Chair of the GNSO
(1). http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25aug11-en.htm#5
(2). http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/sac052.pdf
2. Adopted ccNSO Letter to the Board Single Character IDN TLD),
To: Chair of the ICANN Board of Directors
Cc: Rod Beckstrom
Dear Steve
At its meeting on 22 December 2011 the ccNSO Council extensively discussed the current status of the introduction of Single Character IDN TLDs. Noting the ICANN Board resolution on this topic (1), the Council discussion was initiated by concerns raised by the joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG).
Following its discussion, the ccNSO Council reiterates its support for the introduction of Single Character IDN TLD’s. However, the ccNSO Council also requests further clarification from the Board on three matters.
Firstly, one of the issues raised by the JIG was the ambiguity on the timing of the delegation of Single Character IDN TLDs. According to the August 2011 resolution, the Board: ‘Directs staff to publish a timetable for this work, clearly indicating that processes for delegation of single-character IDN TLDs will be made available after the first gTLD application round and conclusion of IDN ccTLD policy work.’ The ccNSO Council would appreciate clarification on the meaning of the word “and” in the final part of the sentence, in particular whether it should be interpreted as a condition i.e. that both the IDN ccTLD policy development process and new gTLD processes need to have been concluded to allow the introduction of singe character IDN TLDs.
Secondly, the ccNSO Council notes that the Board envisioned further consultations with the SSAC, GAC and ALAC, following the submission of ccNSO and GNSO recommendations. It is our understanding that the SSAC has already been consulted and its advice published on 31 January 2012(2) . With regard to the other two consultations, we would appreciate an indication of their current status and associated timelines. We would also appreciate an indication of the steps, when the aforementioned consultations have been completed.
Finally, it is our understanding that concerns have been raised regarding the kind of script that will be used for the Single Character IDN TLDs. In particular, whether a pictographic or alphabetic script makes a difference, and these concerns are an additional factor. We would appreciate if the Board could indicate whether or not this understanding is correct.
Looking forward to your response,
Kind regards,
Lesley Cowley OBE
Chair of the ccNSO
(1) http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25aug11-en.htm#5
(2) http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/sac052.pdf
[1|https://community.icann.org/#_ftnref1] http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25aug11-en.htm#5
3 Joint ccNSO/GNSO letter approved by the GNSO Council - 15 DECEMBER 2011
http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201112
NOW THEREFORE RESOLVED that, upon the mutual resolution from both the GNSO and ccNSO councils on the subject, the Council Chairs would send to the ICANN Board the following letter in response to their August 2011 resolution on Single Character IDN TLDs:
JIG (Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group) Response to ICANN Board Resolution on Single Character IDN TLDs
Dear ICANN Board,
First of all, we appreciate activity at the ICANN Board regarding Single Character IDN TLDs. In response to the August 2011 resolution (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25aug11-en.htm#5) however, we express our disappointment and concern on 3 critical aspects:
Both the ccNSO and the GNSO councils have at multiple occasions expressed a consensus principle that the introduction of IDN gTLDs or IDN ccTLDs should not be delayed because of lack of readiness of one category. The August 2011 Board resolution (by specifying that “processes for delegation of single-character IDN TLDs will be made available after the first gTLD application round and conclusion of IDN ccTLD policy work.”) perhaps inadvertently conflicted with this community consensus understanding and should be rectified or clarified.
The issue of Single Character IDN TLDs have gone through at least 4 rounds of community discussions, including at the GNSO IDN WG (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/idn-wg-fr-22mar07.htm), the GNSO Reserved Names WG (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/final-report-rn-wg-23may07.htm), incorporated into the GNSO New gTLD recommendations (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm), and of course the JIG report (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig-final-report-single-character-idns-30mar11-en.pdf). Each time there is consistent consensus support from the community for allowing Single Character IDN TLDs in the new gTLD process (including the first round), and no objections were received from any of the ACs. The August 2011 Board resolution specifying that Single Character IDN TLDs not be included in the first round ignores this repeated community consensus without reasonable rationale.
While the August 2011 Board resolution generally requested input from a collection of ACs, there is a lack of progressive direction towards the implementation of Single Character IDN TLDs. Furthermore, while input from ACs is always welcome, given the multitude of public comment periods already conducted for the subject, including participation from SSAC members, with consistent consensus response, such consultation with ACs should not become an arbitrary hurdle for the implementation of Single Character IDN TLDs, especially for the New gTLD process.
Single Character IDN TLDs is not simply a “good to have” feature, but a necessary requirement for some of the IDN communities in order to allow broadly attractive and competitive gTLDs. As an example, for Chinese IDN TLDs, the prohibition of Single Character IDN TLDs would effectively devoid the community of single-syllable-single-word TLDs, which is otherwise acceptable for English and other alphabetic based language TLDs (e.g. “.word” would be an acceptable ASCII single-syllable-single-word TLD, yet a similar single-syllable-single-word TLD “.字” would not be acceptable for Chinese), creating an unjustified situation of inequity, and significantly hindering the adoption of IDN.
The JIG, through the ccNSO and GNSO councils therefore sincerely urges the Board to:
Implement the community consensus of allowing Single Character IDN TLDs without restricting such implementation to being after the first round of the new gTLD process, and to decouple the requirement that IDN ccTLD or IDN gTLD mechanisms wait for the other;
If necessary, form an implementation team to assist staff in immediately implementing Single Character IDN TLDs for scripts and languages where the input of a Single Character requires multiple keystrokes (e.g. ideographical scripts, and avoiding the potential technical concern of keyboard layouts identified in the JIG report), and for the team to further guide implementation for other scripts as well as coordinate input from the ACs; and,
Update or amend the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook for such implementation before the application period for the first round is over.
The JIG and the significantly affected language communities are prepared to support ICANN staff and Board in the swift implementation of Single Character IDN TLDs without compromising the security and stability of the Internet. The JIG further believes that minor adjustments to the Applicant Guidebook would suffice and is ready to work with staff closely to complete its implementation.
We look forward to the positive response and actions from the Board.
Sincerely,
ccNSO Council (approval: [LINK])
GNSO Council (approval: [LINK])
JIG -- Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group
The motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.
