[ArabICANN] IDN ccPDP WG 2 ­ Draft Final Report

Baher Esmat baher.esmat at icann.org
Mon Oct 24 13:18:18 EEST 2011


This might be of interest to those who follow IDN policy development within ICANN.

Baher

------ Forwarded Message
From: ICANN News Alert <communications at icann.org>
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 20:06:02 -0700
To: Baher Esmat <baher.esmat at icann.org>
Subject: ICANN News Alert -- IDN ccPDP WG 2 – Draft Final Report



 <http://www.icann.org/>
News Alert


http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-22oct11-en.htm

________________________________

IDN ccPDP WG 2 – Draft Final Report


22 October 2011




IDN ccPDP WG 2 – Draft Final Report
 Comment Period Deadlines (*) Important Information Links
 Public Comment Box <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/idn-pdp-wg2-draft-final-report-22oct11-en.htm>
 Open Date: 22 October 2011 To Submit Your Comments (Forum) <mailto:idn-pdp-wg2-draft-final-report at icann.org>
 Close Date: 15 December 2011 Time (UTC): 23:59 View Comments Submitted <http://forum.icann.org/lists/idn-pdp-wg2-draft-final-report/>
 Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose
 The purpose of the IDN country code policy development process Working Group 2 (IDN ccPDP WG 2) is to report on and identify feasible recommendations for the inclusion of IDN ccTLDs in the ccNSO within the framework of the IDN ccPDP. To date the WG has identified the following clusters of issues/topic area's:

 1.  Membership definition.
 2.  Roles of members
    *   Eligibility and selection of Councilors to the ccNSO Council
    *   Initiation of PDP
    *   Voting (Policy development process, selection of Councilors)
 3.  Quorum for voting
 4.  Scope of PDP as defined in Annex C

Recommendation on membership definition The WG recommends that the definition in Article IX section 4.1 should be updated to maintain the one-to- one correspondence between the IANA Root Zone Database and membership in the ccNSO. Recommendation on Eligibility and Nomination of councilors No changes in Bylaws needed. Recommendation on initiation of ccPDP In order to maintain the envisioned balance and taking into account the leading principles, the WG recommends that:

 *   All members of the ccNSO should be entitled to call for the creation of an Issue Report;
 *   These members need to be from different Territories;
 *   The current minimum of 10 members to request the creation of an Issue Report should be maintained.

Recommendation on voting (Council member selection and members vote PDP) The majority of the WG members is of the view that with the inclusion of IDN ccTLD in the ccNSO the voting in the ccNSO should be based on the principle of one vote per Territory should be applied. A minority of the WG members is of the view the voting should be based on the principle of one member one vote Recommendation for one vote per Territory with multiple members If there are two or more ccTLD managers in a Territory who have become members of the ccNSO, for purposes of voting in the ccNSO an emissary for that Territory has to be appointed by all members from that Territory. It is a matter for the ccNSO members in the Territory how to designate such an emissary. During the period the emissary has not been appointed, the incumbent member of the ccNSO from that Territory is deemed to vote for that Territory, until such time the ccNSO Council is informed by all members from that Territory of the appointment of an emissary for the Territory. Recommendation on quorum Assuming that one vote per Territory is the preferred principle, the current quorum rule could be maintained, albeit the relevant sections in the Bylaws need to be adjusted to reflect this principle. Recommendation on changes to Annex C (Scope of the ccPDP) No changes needed to the Annex C of the Bylaws. At this stage the WG seeks your comments and input on the following:

 *   Should alternative solutions be included to resolve an issue identified?
 *   Do you support the proposed solution, and why? Would you prefer an alternative solution, and why?

After closure of the public comment period the working group will prepare submit its Final report to the Issue manager to be included in the IDN ccPDP Final Report.
 Section II: Background
 The purpose of the IDN country code policy development process Working Group 2 (IDN ccPDP WG 2) is to report on and identify feasible recommendations for the inclusion of IDN ccTLDs in the ccNSO within the framework of the IDN ccPDP. The scope of the IDN ccPDP WG 2 is to focus on, without limitation, examination of Article IX of the ICANN Bylaws and associated Annexes (Annex B and C of the ICANN Bylaws). It shall also take into account the proposals and recommendations of the IDN country code policy development process Working Group 1 (IDN ccPDP WG 1) on the selection and delegation of IDN ccTLDs associated with the territories listed in the ISO 3166-1 (IDN ccTLDs). As this IDN ccPDP WG 2 undertakes its activities within the framework of the IDN ccPDP, the limitations on the scope of a ccPDP, in particular by Article IX of and Annex C to the Bylaws, applies accordingly.
 Section III: Document and Resource Links
 Documents posted for comment: The draft Final Report can be found at the following link: https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/idn-pdp-wg2-draft-final-report-22oct11-en.pdf Additional Resources: Further information on the IDN country code policy development process Working Group 2 is available at: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ipwg2.htm
 Section IV: Additional Information
 After closure of the public comment period the working group will prepare its Final report and submit it to the Issue manager for inclusion in the IDN ccPDP Final Report.
 Staff Contact: Bart Boswinkel Email: bart.boswinkel at icann.org <mailto:bart.boswinkel at icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20IDN%20ccPDP%20WG%202%20-%20Draft%20Final%20Report%20public%20comment%20period>


(*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses.





  This message was sent to baher.esmat at icann.org from: ICANN | 4676 Admiralty Way Suite 330 | Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601   Email Marketing by  <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186>
 Manage Your Subscription  <http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=9826224&l=6333&s=52JX&m=374759&c=165637>

------ End of Forwarded Message
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail-list.aratld.org/pipermail/meac.icann/attachments/20111024/4fe6f616/attachment.html>


More information about the MEAC.ICANN mailing list