RE: [gnso-idng] scope of discussion

[Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All seems reasonable to me Edmon.

For the record I am not sure I am for a Fast Track of IDN gTLD's but am happy 
to use this group to debate the topic - provided this is appropriate.

Thanks.

Adrian Kinderis


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Edmon Chung
Sent: Friday, 3 April 2009 11:05 PM
To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-idng] scope of discussion


Hi Everyone,

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this topic, which I personally think 
should be a meaningful project for the ICANN community.

Wanted to start off by considering the scope we would like to have for this 
particular drafting team. Here are my initial thoughts:

1. Focused on IDN gTLD Fast Track -- the discussion should conceptually be 
following from the recent resolution on the timing of the introduction of IDN 
ccTLD and IDN gTLD and the consistent position we have maintained regarding the 
issue

2. Not intended to resolve all the implementation issues -- it may be useful to 
consider some of the implementation issues so that we know what items should be 
discussed in the IDNG WG if it is formed, however the actual discussions I 
think should take place once the IDNG WG is formed rather than at this drafting 
team

3. Depending on existing policy recommendations -- all discussions here and in 
the IDNG WG if it is formed should depend on existing policy recommendations, 
including the GNSO IDN WG final outcomes report and the GNSO new gTLD 
recommendations, which means that no policy development should be required

4. Council Motion for the formation of an IDNG WG -- in my mind, the outcome, 
if any, of this drafting team would be a proposed motion for the council to 
consider in terms of requesting the board to form an IDNG WG, much like the 
IDNC WG which was formed to develop the IDN ccTLD Fast Track

5. Draft Charter of IDNG WG -- this would be another outcome from this drafting 
team.  Again, in my mind, I think it should make sense to follow the footsteps 
of the IDNC WG.  What we would need to develop, would be a set of basic 
principles, scope and timeline for the IDNG WG, much like that for the IDNC WG 
charter (see: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/idnc-charter.htm).

The question of whether an IDNG WG should be formed I think may actually be 
better discussed through the consideration of 4&5 above.  The discussions for 
which and whether we could come to consensus around them would essentially 
reveal the answer to that question.

What do people think about the above for a starting point?

Edmon