[governance] Is really Bulgarian Cyrillic .бг (.bg) similar to other Latin ccTLDs?

[Tina Dam]

Hi Hong Xue, nice to see you yesterday. I did not notice you were jetlagged.

We may be meaning the same thing, but just to be clear this is what we said:


-          The fast track process was built limited in nature and for those applications where there is no concerns or no disputes of any kind. I also said I believe this is an appropriate approach for the initial IDN TLD delegations. It does however not mean that things should be more liberal in the future, but it is always easier to expand a program than to narrow it after the fact.


-          Anyone at ICANN who are unhappy about a decision and not able to solve this with staff, can always go to the Ombudsman or seek reconsideration through the process for such. For details about these general processes, which are non-dependant on the fast track process, but part of ICANNs Accountability and Review Processes, please see http://www.icann.org/en/general/accountability_review.html

I am sorry that the audio is broken, but can also tell you that the issue was not discussed any further than that.

Tina

From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Hong Xue
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 5:24 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Daniel Kalchev
Subject: Re: [governance] Is really Bulgarian Cyrillic .бг (.bg) similar to other Latin ccTLDs?


Has anyone on this list attended "IDN fast track process review" debriefing at ICANN Cartagena Meeting on December 6? Please refer to http://cartagena39.icann.org/node/15415. Ms. Tina Dam and Mr. Patrick Jones from ICANN chaired the session.

Tina presented on the following aspects of fast track process:

- Transparency
- Community Support
- Meaningfulness
- Determination of the IDN ccTLD manager
- IDN Tables
- Disputes
- Confusingly similar string
- Objection/re-evaluation rights

Although there were less than 30 participants in the plenary room, the session brought up interesting information. At the end of the presentation, there were questions raised on the Internet referred to .бг (.bg) case. The staff restated that they were not supposed to comment on any specific case.

I then asked a procedural question. Although the String evaluation done by DNS stability panel (according to their guidelines) is a technical decision, it is a decision made on behalf of ICANN and has (significant) policy implication. If such technical determination is not subject to reconsideration or independent review, wouldn't it be an accountability issue, as highlighted by ICANN at the opening ceremony?

To my *rough* memory, both replied that fast track process should be sufficiently simply, without objection or re-evaluation. And, surprisingly both ICANN staff replied that anyone would be available to reconsideration or review.

Although I was terribly jetlagged, I assume I heard their reply clearly. Since I had another meeting and had to leave the conference room immediately after the question , I did not know if this issue was discussed further.

The audio record at the link is broken unfortunately. If there were anyone present, could you let me know if I heard the reply wrong?

Regards

Hong





--
Dr. Hong Xue
Professor of Law
Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL)
Beijing Normal University
http://www.iipl.org.cn/<http://iipl.org.cn/>
19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street
Beijing 100875 China
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 2:34 AM, Daniel Kalchev <daniel at digsys.bg<mailto:daniel at digsys.bg>> wrote:
There is not much point in pointing fingers. Much of the damage has been done to both the Bulgarian application (Government's reputation) and to ICANN (process quality, suspiction of double standards). As it was noted, we can all learn from mistakes and the time now is appropriate to correct the issues.

In my opinion, the fact that there is some shielding of process flow from the non-involved parties is not bad. Bad is the lack of defined evaulation criteria and the total lack of wider/public consultations in the evaluation stages (not decision stages) of the process. Another bad practice is the lack of detailed explanation after the fact. It is only logocal, that refused applications will be reviewed by external parties and those parties may find lack of diligency on part of the staff/evaluation groups. What then?
If there is no procedure for explaining/justifying the opinion or decision, there will always be the doubt that someone has done wrong. And those concerns grow with time until at some point trust breaks.

Daniel

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
   governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
   governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>

For all list information and functions, see:
   http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101207/b468412d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t