Page History

...

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);

...

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:

...

WHEREAS ICANN staff has provided an updated proposal based on the IPC comments (as described in http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12580msg12600.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/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12580.htmldrafts/irtp-recommendation-8-proposal-26jan12-en.pdf). 

 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................

Item 5:JIG Letter to the Board

1. Draft 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

Wiki MarkupIn December 2012 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 \[[1]\|https://community.icann.org/#_ftn1\], the discussions were initiated by concerns raised by the joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG). \\(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 requestand  further 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 ‘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 ’  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 . However, the issues on which they are being asked to advise are unclear, nor when the SSAC advice will be made availableand 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 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,

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  2. ccNSO Letter  to the Board (Draft ccNSO to Board Single Character IDN TLD),

To: Chair of the ICANN Board of Directors

Cc: Rod Beckstrom

Dear Steve

Wiki MarkupAt 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 \[[1]\|https://community.icann.org/#_ftn1\],  the Council discussion was initiated by concerns raised by the joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG). \\(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 ‘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 ’  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 . However, the issues on which they are being asked to advise are unclear, nor when the SSAC advice will be made availableand 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

Wiki Markup\[[1]\|https://community.icann.org/#_ftnref1\] \[(1) http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25aug11-en.htm#5 \\ \]

Lesley Cowley OBE                                                                                       Stephane van Gelder,

htm#5

(2) http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/sac052.pdf

...

[1Chair of the ccNSO                                                                                        Chair of the GNSO
Wiki Markup\[[1]\|https://community.icann.org/#_ftnref1\] [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

...

We look forward to the positive response and actions from the Board.

Sincerely,

Wiki MarkupccNSO Council (approval: \ [LINK\])unmigrated-wiki-markup

GNSO Council (approval: \ [LINK\])

JIG -- Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group
The motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.