c c NSO IDN WG sub-gr oup 3 c r oss-ove r issue s Mar c h, 2007 Minjung Par k(.kr )
T he Goal of Sub-gr oup 3 T o ide ntify c r oss-ove r issue s ar ising fr om the intr oduc tion of IDNs at the top le ve l inc luding ne w gT L Ds (c c NSO IDN WG Char te r )
Cr oss-ove r Issue s on IDNs at the T op L e ve l � Applic ation (Str ing, Re gistr y se le c tion) c r ite r ia of IDN T L Ds in ne w gT L D pr oc e ss – Should the same se le c tion c r ite r ia be applie d to asc ii and IDN T L Ds in the ne w gT L D r ounds? < Ne w gT L D e valuation pr oc e ss > – Pr e liminar y e valuation stage the applic ation will be appr ove d if : • Applic ation me e ts obje c tive te c hnic al, busine ss c r ite r ia • T e c hnic al stability is assur e d • Str ing is not a r e se r ve d name • Str ing is not c onfusingly similar to e xisting or pr opose d str ing • T he r e ’s no str ing c onte ntion • No for mal obje c tion is r aise d
– If not, what should be an additional se t of applic ation c r ite r ia(r e quir e me nts) for IDN T L Ds in the ne w gT L D r ounds? • Should the applic ant be r e quir e d to de monstr ate br oad- base d suppor t fr om the loc al language c ommunity? (GNSO IDN WG’s F inal R e por t ) • If ye s, how to de te r mine the loc al language c ommunity? – In some c ase s it would be r e lative ly e asy to de fine the c or r e sponding loc al language c ommunity(i.e . one language : one c ountr y(or te r r itor y), whe r e as it may not be so e asy for othe r s(i.e . multiple language : multiple c ountr y(or te r r itor ie s)) • Should the r e be a c onsultation pr oc e ss with c c NSO and possibly the GAC? • How do we inc or por ate the c onsultation pr oc e ss within the ne w gT L Ds pr oc e ss?
Cr oss-ove r Issue s on IDN at the T op L e ve l � Re se r ve d ge ogr aphic al & ge opolitic al name s all ge ogr aphic & ge opolitic al name s in the ISO 3166-1 list (e .g.Por tugal, – India, Canada) & name s of te r r itor ie s, distinc t ge ogr aphic and ge opolitic al name s as ICANN may dir e c t fr om time to time – GNSO IDN WG F inal Re por t(’07.3) : 4.1.2. GAC Consultation on Ge o-politic al Impac t: • Agr e e me nt that, within the pr oc e ss for ne w gT L D c onside r ation, the pr oc e ss for de te r mining whe the r a str ing has a ge o-politic al impac t is a c halle nge , and that GAC c onsultation may be ne c e ssar y but may not pr ovide c ompr e he nsive r e sponse s. – Should the c c NSO be inc lude d within the c onsultation pr oc e ss on r e se r ve d ge ogr aphic al and ge opolitic al name s? • If so, what would be the suitable c onsultation pr oc e ss? Jointly wor king with the GAC and r e le vant language c ommunity? • Should the c onsultation pr oc e ss be made pr ior to applic ation? Or dur ing applic ation pr oc e ss?
GNSO IDN WG F inal Re por t � 4.1.2. GAC Consultation on Ge o-politic al Impac t: � Agr e e me nt that, within the pr oc e ss for ne w gT L D c onside r ation, the pr oc e ss for de te r mining whe the r a str ing has a ge o-politic al impac t is a c halle nge , and that GAC c onsultation may be ne c e ssar y but may not pr ovide c ompr e he nsive r e sponse s. � 4.1.3. L anguage Community Input for E valuation of ne w IDN gT L D Str ings: � Agr e e me nt that a suitable pr oc e ss for c onsultation, inc luding with r e le vant language c ommunitie s, is ne e de d whe n c onside r ing ne w IDN gT L D str ings. 4.2.10 In r e fe r e nc e to the de ve lopme nt of a suitable pr oc e ss for c onsultation – (Se e pr e vious se c tion on “Agr e e me nt that a suitable pr oc e ss for c onsultation, inc luding with r e le vant language c ommunitie s, is ne e de d whe n c onside r ing ne w IDN gT L D str ings”); Suppor t for a suitably c onve ne d language c ommitte e , fair ly r e pr e se nting the ge ogr aphic distr ibution of the r e spe c tive language c ommunity wor ldwide , to r e vie w the se le c tion/ adoption of an IDN gT L D str ing in that par tic ular language .
Ne w gT L D e valuation pr oc e ss � Pr e liminar y e valuation stage the applic ation will be appr ove d if : – Applic ation me e ts obje c tive te c hnic al, busine ss c r ite r ia – T e c hnic al stability is assur e d – Str ing is not a r e se r ve d name – Str ing is not c onfusingly similar to e xisting or pr opose d str ing – T he r e ’s no str ing c onte ntion – No for mal obje c tion is r aise d � Issue s r aise d in the pr e liminar y e valuation may be r e solve d in an e xte nde d e valuation pr oc e dur e c har ac te r ise d by a se t of dispute r e solution pr oc e ss
Recommend
More recommend
