MOTION TO APPROVE CROSS COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP PRINCIPLES
deferred from the Council meeting on 19 January 2012
Made by: Jonathan Robinson
Seconded by: Jeff Neuman
Whereas, the GNSO from time to time has participated in cross-community working groups to address issues of common interest to other ICANN supporting organizations (SO) and advisory committees (AC);
Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to develop a GNSO agreed perspective with regard to the role, function and method of conducting joint activities for future projects that respects and preserves the recognized roles and responsibilities assigned to each SO/AC under the ICANN Bylaws;
Whereas, on 06 October 2011 the GNSO Council approved a charter and the formation of a Drafting Team to define a way forward for the effective chartering, functioning, and utilization of such cross-community working groups;
Whereas, on 04 January 2012 the Drafting Team provided to the Council for consideration Draft Principles for Cross-Community Working Groups: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-principles-for-cwgs-23dec11-en.pdf+.+
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
Resolved, that the GNSO Council hereby approves the Draft Principles for Cross-Community Working Groups for its own guidance and requests staff to disseminate them to the Chairs of the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees asking them to provide input to the GNSO Council in 60 days on both the principles themselves and the route forward for community-wide adoption or development of a related set of principles for the operation of Cross-Community Working Groups;
Resolved further, the GNSO Council thanks the Drafting Team members for their work in developing the Draft Principles and disbands the Team.
Draft Joint letter
To: Chair of the ICANN Board of Directors
Cc: Rod Beckstrom
Dear Steve
In December 2012 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).
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 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. However, the issues on which they are being asked to advise are unclear, nor when the SSAC advice will be made available. With regard to the other two consultations, we would appreciate an indication of their current status and associated timelines.
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,
ccNSO Letter
To: Chair of the ICANN Board of Directors
Cc: Rod Beckstrom
Dear Steve
At its meeting on 22 December 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).
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. However, the issues on which they are being asked to advise are unclear, nor when the SSAC advice will be made available. With regard to the other two consultations, we would appreciate an indication of their current status and associated timelines.
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|https://community.icann.org/#_ftnref1] http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25aug11-en.htm#5\\
Lesley Cowley OBE Stephane van Gelder,
Chair of the ccNSO Chair of the GNSO
[1|https://community.icann.org/#_ftnref1] http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25aug11-en.htm#5