Skip to main content

CWG-Stewardship Chairs' Statement - Weekend Sessions 10-11 January 2015

The Cross Community Working Group (CWG) on Naming Related Functions held an intensive work weekend on 10-11 January 2015. The weekend comprised four, two-hour virtual meetings held over two days, equivalent to one month of full CWG meetings and had a significant focus on input received from public comments on the draft proposal. The CWG is fully aware of the value of the contribution provided by the comprehensive and thoughtful public comments it received.

When originally scheduled, the work weekend was envisaged as a time to finalize the basis of the CWG proposal in order for the proposal to be prepared for submission to the five chartering organizations (ALAC, ccNSO, GAC, GNSO, and SSAC) and thereafter, to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) as part of the overall IANA Stewardship Transition process. However, considering the diversity of comments received during the public comment period on the draft proposal, it became apparent to the CWG that more work was needed to review and refine the proposal on the back of these. As such, the weekend's focus was on further processing of the public comment input and identifying areas of commonality within the CWG, using tools such as polls and surveys.

Going into the weekend, the CWG conducted two surveys of the whole group in order to get a high-level sense of the group's views regarding different suggestions made in the submissions from the public comment period. The surveys were based on suggestions arising from the public comment submissions, as well as additional, related questions. The results of the survey were used to guide the CWG in considering the public comments and continuing its work toward development of a final proposal for submission to the ICG.

Key Developments from the Weekend

Overall, the weekend served to hone a range of details within the CWG proposal and to review the original timeline that the CWG agreed to in October. The group also specifically addressed issues related to accountability in order to best assist in the further development of the related work of the CCWG on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability).

The meetings were recorded and transcribed and are available on the group's Wiki, along with the documents presented and the survey results. A quick analysis of the survey results was done in preparation for the weekend and a summary of the findings was presented to the CWG and then systematically discussed by the group.

With regard to the link to the CCWG-Accountability, the CWG worked to develop further input for the CCWG-Accountability ahead of their upcoming meeting in Frankfurt, Germany on 19-20 January 2015. In addition, the group began to identify components of the CWG proposal that are likely to be contingent on key areas of the CCWG-Accountability work.

Looking Ahead

In striving to develop a consensus proposal, the CWG will now need to consider and integrate the outcome of the weekend sessions as well as focus on the critical next steps required. Key next steps include; obtaining legal advice on relevant elements of the proposal and further engagement with the CCWG-Accountability, as well as informing and preparing to seek support from the Chartering Organizations, all of which we recognize will affect the current timeline.

About the CWG

The CWG began its work in October 2014, with regular weekly virtual meetings and a face-to-face meeting at ICANN 51 in Los Angeles, California. In addition to ICANN supported regular weekly CWG virtual meetings, and at the request of the Chairs, ICANN agreed to support a two-full-day face-to-face meeting in Frankfurt, Germany on 19-20 November 2014 to advance the work of the CWG. On 1 December, the CWG published its draft proposal for a 21-day public comment period. Following the publication of the draft proposal [PDF, 1.7 MB], between 4 – 6 December, the CWG hosted 3 public webinars to present the draft proposal and engage with the broader community. The next CWG working meeting is scheduled for 15 January from 14:00-16:00 UTC.

The CWG consists 131 people, organized as 19 members, appointed by and accountable to chartering organizations, and 112 participants, who participate as individuals. The CWG is an open group: anyone interested in the work of the CWG, can join as a participant. Participants may be from a chartering organization, from a stakeholder group or organization not represented in the CWG or currently active within ICANN, or self-appointed.

Of the 131 CWG members and participants, the regional representation is as follows:

  • 46 Asia/Asia Pacific
  • 35 Europe
  • 27 North America
  • 12 Latin America
  • 11 Africa

Of the 131 CWG members and participants, the stakeholder group representation is as follows:

  • 45 (no affiliation)
  • 29 GNSO
  • 18 ccNSO/ccTLD
  • 18 At-Large
  • 18 GAC
  • 2 SSAC
  • 1 ASO

Also, there are 6 ICG members who participate in the CWG.

More Announcements
Domain Name System
Internationalized Domain Name ,IDN,"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet ""a-z"". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European ""0-9"". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed ""ASCII characters"" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of ""Unicode characters"" that provides the basis for IDNs. The ""hostname rule"" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen ""-"". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of ""labels"" (separated by ""dots""). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an ""A-label"". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a ""U-label"". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for ""test"" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of ""ASCII compatible encoding"" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an ""LDH label"". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as"""" is not an IDN."