IDN Working Group Lisbon Meeting (26 March 2007)


Donna Austin, ICANN

Erin Chen, .tw

Ian Chiang, .tw,

Keith Drazek, .us

Li Guangjao, .cn

Hiro Hotta, .jp

Ming-Cheng Liang (.tw), Chairman

Slobodan Markovic, ccNSO Council Member

Min-Jung Park, .kr

Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat

Charles Shaban, ccNSO Council Member

Jonathan Shea, .hk

William Tan, .us

Ming-Cheng started the meeting by informing the group that the gNSO IDN Working Group is working very fast and has already put forward recommendations to the gNSO. However, they are aware of that consultation is needed with ccTLDs and the gTLD recommendations will also be circulated amongst ccTLDs. It was suggested to merge the current process so that there is a possibility to notify the gNSO of the ccTLD�s needs in time.

Ming-Cheng further informed the meeting that the GAC invited ISO related people to the meeting, intending to let the ISO make a table for each language or script. Ming-Cheng emphasised that he is not in favour of this initiative, thinking it would be much more appropriate to let the existing ccTLDs do their own list. Each ccTLD could start by choosing one IDN ccTLD during a sunrise period.

Some of the participants, however, expressed their support of letting the ISO building the language tables, as they felt it would be a more objective selection.

It was pointed out that CENTR has taken a step in starting proposing suggested names and it was felt that perhaps the ccNSO Working Group should go in the same direction. If so, all ccNSO members must be aware of the process. It was felt that the group should come up with a recommendation, so that an opinion could be presented during the upcoming IDN Open Forum where the Working Groups will have a joint discussion.

It was also decided that Hiro Hotta, Min-Jung Park and Jonathan Shea would represent the group during this meeting.

William Tan gave an update on gNSO IDN discussions. The IDN Working Group has published a report which is presenting their viewpoints. It is dealing with three issues: Agreements (which is the minor part), Support (what the gNSO agreed on) and Alternative use.

The main discussions currently are focusing on whether to allow the introduction of new gTLDs and sTLDs until IDN policy has been produced. The majority of the gTLDs think there is no need to introduce new gTLDs until the IDN policy has been finalised. The gNSO Council will decide which way to go in this respect.

A discussion followed on how much of the ccTLD input regarding cross-over issues actually will count and what happens after input has been provided. This is of special importance when a ccTLD submits an objection to a policy rule.

It was clarified that ICANN is forming a panel which will take all proposals into consideration. When it comes to cross-over issues a formalised request needs to be submitted to be able to become part of the process. However, if the GAC will come up with some suggestions, there is not much the ccTLDs can do to influence it � only in cases where the GAC goes �too far� the ccTLDs should try to correct.

It was then discussed how to continue the work on cross-over issues. It was felt that it would be best if the ccNSO could use the same process as the gTLDs, as it was felt that only being able to comment would be too little. The group should come up with recommendations which then should go to the ccNSO Council for consideration. It was also highlighted that one potential issue that may arise is that the gTLDs may want to have the same treatment that ccTLDs are expecting, with the possibility to review and object IDN Top level Domains.

Another issue that Ming-Cheng felt would need to be addressed was to define who would be allowed to choose the IDN ccTLD � whether it would be the ISO or the ccTLDs themselves.

Hiro Hotta presented a number of questions and problems that ccTLDs would have to face, should they decide to choose each country name themselves:

Can the IDN ccTLDs use the same process as the IDN of a gTLD?

What are the criteria to submit IDNs that ccTLDs will have to approve?

Will there be standard criteria?

Who decides whether the TLDs are equivalent?

What if there is a conflict (similar looking TLDs, such as .py for Paraguay in ascii, but �Russia� in Cyrillic).

If ccTLDs propose a solution for Russia � are they obliged to follow it?

Should there be any limit on the length of the string?

How will future conflicts be resolved on mandating standard abbreviations of countries?

A draft recommendation for each issue was to be posted during the next day, to be recommended during the Wednesday ccNSO Session on IDNs. It was pointed out that the GAC�s comments on this issue would also have to be taken into consideration.

Finally, discussions were held on how to treat geopolitical IDN names. It was felt that if a gTLD application for a geopolitical name is filed, the ccNSO should automatically be consulted.

It was decided that the ccNSO Council should write to the gNSO Council recommending that this should be implemented as one of the steps in the gTLD application process.