Another Transition Plan Proposal

[Tina Dam]

Hi Eric, I am not sure I see your problem....

1) all gtld operators, no matter who provides their back-end service will be under contract with ICANN and hence is obligated to follow the IDN Guidelines as well as the IDNA protocol.

2) all new IDN ccTLDs (none yet) are also per Terms and Conditions to which they signed obligated to follow the IDN Guidelines and the IDNA protocol. 

3) sure enough, the ccTLD manager do not have that same obligation - that is why the IDN Guidelines are called guidelines and I think we all know the history to that. That said, a know a lot of ccTLD managers to follow the IDN Guidelines and as Cary pointed out they are taking part in the revision work.

Other than that the IDN Guidelines revision follow public comment periods. If there is anyone in particular you feel is missing out on the communication for such public comment periods existence please let me know separately and I will make sure that outreach is conducted in a timely manner. CORE, as you mention, seem to be well-aware of such information and where to find it...so what am I missing that you are trying to accomplish?

Tina


-----Original Message-----
From: idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 10:52 AM
To: Cary Karp
Cc: idna-update at alvestrand.no
Subject: Re: Another Transition Plan Proposal

On 12/16/09 1:40 PM, Cary Karp wrote:
>> the universe of technically competent operators is much, much larger
>> than the universe of operators which are directly, or indirectly,
>> party to a contract with ICANN.
>
> Yep. So it's a good thing that the five TLDs that participate directly
> in the Guidelines group (all volunteers; none ICANN appointees) are as
> evenly divided between contracted and non-contracted parties as can be.


This may miss the point that non-contracted operators, e.g., CNNIC, 
may, in the future, operate contracted registries, e.g., .FOO, where 
the parties to the ICANN contract are BAR Corp., a TLD holdings 
company in the Bahamas, and ICANN.

Its not the current g and c problem, in which CORE is the unique 
orphan with registries and no contracted party status (save as a 
registrar, not relevant to the issue), but the future g and c problem, 
where the majority of gTLDs are not operated by the union of Verisign, 
NeuStar and Afilias, nor by CORE either, just for the implied humor.

In that future, most operators will have no contractual relationship 
with ICANN, due to a business decision made last summer, scrapping the 
"certified (or certifiable) registry operator" designation and the 
implied relationship. That leaves a virtual room full of lawyers, 
three of whom channel (when in a trance) the available technical clue.

Eric

_______________________________________________
Idna-update mailing list
Idna-update at alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update