RE: FW: [Fwd: RE: [gnso-idncctlds-wg] Draft for final review of GNSO comments re. the ccNSO/GAC Issues Paper]

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Tin Wee.  Please note my responses to your suggested wording below.  I 
hope you are able to participate in the call but if not we will discuss your 
suggested wording of the questions below along with my comments and those of 
others.  Comments on this before the meeting are encouraged.

Chuck Gomes
 
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it 
is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and 
exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, 
distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the 
original transmission." 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tan Tin Wee [mailto:tinwee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 2:07 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-idncctlds-wg@xxxxxxxxx; Sophia Bekele
> Subject: Re: FW: [Fwd: RE: [gnso-idncctlds-wg] Draft for 
> final review of GNSO comments re. the ccNSO/GAC Issues Paper]
> 
> Hi Chuck,
> 
> I will leaving for Hanoi training workshop which I am 
> organising this week.
> 
> I'll be in Hanoi in Monday evening, and will try to get the 
> hotel phone number to Glen, who promised to call me if I 
> cannot get through.
> 
> Regarding the last few items when we were wearing thin after 
> 2.5hrs on the phone the last time round, here's some of my 
> suggestions, assuming my reading of what Sophia is trying to 
> comment on is correct.
> 
> Sophia, any comments on the following?
> bestrgds
> tin wee (leaving for the airport in a sec)
> 
> 
> b) Who decides on the delegation and in particular:
> -------------------------------------------------
> * Are there specific reasons for deviating from the standard 
> practice/guidelines that a zone should only be delegated with 
> the support of the local internet community, which includes 
> the government ?
> 
> A GNSO response to these questions is probably inappropriate. 
>  At the same time, a question that should possibly be 
> considered is: Should local legitimacy be a guiding principle 
> in this context?

Chuck:  This looks good to me.

> 
> * Is consent/involvement/knowledge of government required?/
> 
> GNSO response: A GNSO response to this question is probably 
> inappropriate. However, at the same time, a question that 
> could possibly be considered is, particularly in cases where 
> local legitimacy is in question, clarifying the legitimacy by 
> requiring government consent/knowledge.

Chuck:  A concern I have is the use of the words "requiring government 
consent".  Requiring government consent would give governments an operational 
role in the Internet that I do not believe was ever intended in the White Paper 
and one that the GAC has stated it does not want.  Obviously, an individual 
government will be able to exercise its authority however it chooses regarding 
its ccTLD, but I believe it is better from an ICANN perspective to avoid 
"requiring government consent".  It makes it sound like we are granting the 
government power that they do not already have.  So I would suggest we word the 
response like this: "A GNSO response to this question is probably 
inappropriate. However, at the same time, a question that could possibly be 
considered is, particularly in cases where local legitimacy is in question, 
clarifying the legitimacy by encouraging government involvement and knowledge."

> 
> * Is consent/involvement/knowledge of incumbent ccTLD manager 
> required?/
> 
> GNSO response: A GNSO response to this question is probably 
> inappropriate. However, at the same time, a question that 
> could possibly be considered is, particularly in cases where 
> local legitimacy is in question, setting aside the need for 
> the incumbent's consent.

Chuck: I personally think we are stepping over the bounds of appropriateness 
here.  I think it should be up to local authorities to decide what role 
incumbent ccTLD managers should play but it would seem desirable to encourage 
involvement by the local ccTLD manager because of the experience they can bring 
to the table.  Therefore, I would suggest a response something like the 
following: "A GNSO response to this question is probably inappropriate. 
However, whatever role the incumbent ccTLD manager plays in this process, it 
would seem desirable to encourage involvement by the local ccTLD manager 
because of the experience they can bring to the table."

> 
> * Is there any presumptive right of the ASCII ccTLD manager 
> over a corresponding IDN ccTLD?/
> 
> GNSO response: A GNSO response to this question is probably 
> inappropriate. However, at the same time, a question that 
> could possibly be considered (for example in cases where 
> local legitimacy is in question) is  setting aside such a 
> presumptive right, as originally recommended by the original 
> ICANN-wide (gtld and cctld) Katoh IDN commmittee report of a 
> few  years ago on the eventual deployment of IDN TLDs.

Chuck: Here again I think we may be going beyond where the GNSO should go by 
making suggestions that really should be decided by local ccTLD communities.  I 
would suggest that the response go something like the following: "A GNSO 
response to this question is probably inappropriate. However, whatever is 
decided regarding the involvement of the ASCII ccTLD manager, it would seem 
wise to consider the issues of local legitimacy and a good experience for those 
who will directly benefit from the script(s) used for IDN ccTLDs."

> 
> 
> 
> Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > The document we will be using on Google Accounts on Monday 
> is at the link provided below by Olof.  Note that it will not 
> show the markups so I suggest that you also have the Word 
> version I attached available online as well if that is 
> possible.  The attached version should also be reviewed 
> before the meeting so that you can readily see the latest 
> edits that were made. 
> > 
> > 
> > Chuck Gomes
> >  
> > "This message is intended for the use of the individual or 
> entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information 
> that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure 
> under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or 
> disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
> message in error, please notify sender immediately and 
> destroy/delete the original transmission." 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Olof Nordling [mailto:olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 4:31 AM
> > To: 'GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; Gomes, Chuck
> > Subject: RE: [Fwd: RE: [gnso-idncctlds-wg] Draft for final 
> review of 
> > GNSO comments re. the ccNSO/GAC Issues Paper]
> > 
> > Chuck, Glen,
> > I've uploaded it as a new file on
> > http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dgw6snvn_0g6zxgd
> > Lost the mark-ups, though, so it's a clean version with the 
> comments appearing as footnotes. Anyway, it's there with a 
> bit of beginner's luck :-) If that's OK, please forward to 
> list. Otherwise, if we need the redline version posted, 
> perhaps Tin Wee could help out.
> > Best
> > Olof
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: den 16 augusti 2007 20:35
> > To: Gomes, Chuck; Olof Nordling; GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [Fwd: RE: [gnso-idncctlds-wg] Draft for final 
> review of GNSO 
> > comments re. the ccNSO/GAC Issues Paper]
> > 
> > Thanks so much Chuck.
> > 
> > Olof can you load this up, I can perhaps see if I can do it 
> as well, then we send out the url to the group.
> > 
> > Thanks
> > Glen
> > 
> > -------- Message original --------
> > Sujet:      RE: [gnso-idncctlds-wg] Draft for final review 
> of GNSO comments
> > re. the ccNSO/GAC Issues Paper
> > Date:       Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:14:31 -0400
> > De:         Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Pour:       Olof Nordling <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>, Glen 
> De Saint Géry
> > <glen@xxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Glen/Olaf,
> > 
> > Let's use the attached version for our meeting on Monday.  
> It contains all of Olaf's latest edits plus one small one I found.
> > 
> > Chuck Gomes
> > 
> > "This message is intended for the use of the individual or 
> entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information 
> that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure 
> under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or 
> disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
> message in error, please notify sender immediately and 
> destroy/delete the original transmission."
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >      *From:* Olof Nordling [mailto:olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx]
> >      *Sent:* Thursday, August 16, 2007 10:46 AM
> >      *To:* Gomes, Chuck
> >      *Subject:* RE: [gnso-idncctlds-wg] Draft for final 
> review of GNSO
> >      comments re. the ccNSO/GAC Issues Paper
> > 
> >      Hi Chuck,
> > 
> >      I?ve been nitpicking again (can?t resist that temptation,
> >      seemingly..) and came up with the attached redline 
> version ? a few
> >      really small typos etc, nothing of substance, so I 
> just send it for
> >      your consideration for the next/final list version.
> > 
> >      Best regards
> > 
> >      Olof
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > 
> >      *From:* owner-gnso-idncctlds-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> >      [mailto:owner-gnso-idncctlds-wg@xxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf 
> Of *Gomes, Chuck
> >      *Sent:* den 15 augusti 2007 00:51
> >      *To:* gnso-idncctlds-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> >      *Subject:* [gnso-idncctlds-wg] Draft for final review of GNSO
> >      comments re. the ccNSO/GAC Issues Paper
> >      *Importance:* High
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >      The attached document is ready for final review and 
> editing by our
> >      small group.  I attempted to highlight all changes 
> made in today's
> >      meeting but I would appreciate it if those who were on the call
> >      would verify to make sure I did it accurately.  For 
> those not on the
> >      call, we finished going through all of the comments 
> and proposed
> >      edits that group members had submitted for the entire document.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >      This will be our plan of attack in our final 
> teleconference call
> >      this next Monday:
> > 
> >         1. Review, discuss and finalize the edits made in 
> today's call
> >         2. Identify, discuss and finalize any other portions of the
> >            document that any group members flag for additional
> >            consideration.
> > 
> >      Action items for all group members, to be completed 
> before our call
> >      this coming Monday:
> > 
> >         1. Read the entire document to identify any 
> sections that you
> >            think need further discussion and/or possible 
> edits and be
> >            prepared to communicate them in our final 
> meeting or earlier
> >         2. Be prepared to communicate your support or lack 
> of support for
> >            the final document; if there are any portions of 
> the document
> >            that you cannot support, be ready to submit a minority
> >            statement explaining your concerns not later 
> than 24 hours
> >            after the final document is distributed to the 
> list following
> >            our final meeting.
> >         3. Submit any comments or questions to the list for online
> >            discussion between now and our final meeting.
> >         4. It would be extremely helpful if everyone can 
> participate in
> >            our final teleconference call, but if you 
> cannot, please do
> >            the following: 1) understand that this meeting 
> will be the
> >            final opportunity for input into the final 
> document; 2) notify
> >            me in advance of your inability to participate; 
> 3) at least 24
> >            hours before the final meeting, communicate via 
> the list any
> >            points you want to make or edits you want to 
> suggest for any
> >            part of the document; 4) communicate your 
> support or lack of
> >            support for the document and whether you 
> anticipate submitting
> >            a minority statement within 24 hours after the 
> final document
> >            is distributed to the list following our final meeting.
> > 
> >      Action items for Mark McFadden, needed NLT Sunday 
> morning, 19 August:
> > 
> >         1. Write and submit text to the list for consideration as an
> >            additional paragraph just prior to the start of Section
> >            A. (See comment 1 in the document.)  In 
> particular, you made
> >            the following comment: : " I believe that we 
> might consider a
> >            set of general, overall principles by which we formed our
> >            answer.  For instance, some text that urges the 
> ccNSO, GAC and
> >            interested governments to address those policy 
> issues that are
> >            specific to ccTLD issues.  In addition, there is 
> the principle
> >            that operational and general policy issues are 
> guided by the
> >            GNSO's ongoing work on the introduction of new gTLDs and
> >            IDNs.  I think a separate paragraph, prior to 
> the detailed
> >            comments would be helpful and I would be happy 
> to supply some
> >            text that goes after this paragraph."
> >         2. Write and submit text to the list for consideration as an
> >            addition to the proposed GNSO response for the following
> >            question on page 14: "/c) How will such issues 
> as competing
> >            requests (both domestic and international) be 
> dealt with?/"
> >            For reference, you made the following comment in 
> your original
> >            review of the document: ?I think there needs to 
> be a richer
> >            answer here.  In a perfect world there would be 
> no competing
> >            requests and the idea of an international 
> competing request is
> >            a concept that makes very little sense to me.  
> DO you think
> >            they meant those situations where .ORG supported 
> Cyrillic?
> >            I'm not clear on what is being "competed" for in this
> >            question.  When I read the question I thought it meant
> >            competing registries for ccTLD representation in other
> >            scripts.  Can we chat on this one?  I'd be happy 
> to supply
> >            text, but perhaps I don't understand the 
> question properly."
> >            (See comment 2 in the document.)
> > 
> >      Action item for Glen:  Take whatever steps are 
> necessary in advance
> >      of our final meeting so that we can all view the document live
> >      during our call.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >      Chuck Gomes
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >      "This message is intended for the use of the 
> individual or entity to
> >      which it is addressed, and may contain information that is
> >      privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure 
> under applicable
> >      law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure 
> is strictly
> >      prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please
> >      notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original
> >      transmission."
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > Glen de Saint Géry
> > GNSO Secretariat - ICANN
> > gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org
> > http://gnso.icann.org
> > 
> 
>