Re: Purpose & Scope of IDNG WG [RE: [gnso-idng] scope of discussion]

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Edmon,

I have a problem with the phrase : "in the case that the New gTLD process
itself is further delayed, a fast track approach to introduce a number of
IDN gTLDs similar to the IDN ccTLD fast track is being considered."

Who is this being considered by? There's been no formal position taken on
this by either the GNSO Council or the Board or Staff. Quite the contrary in
fact...

Thanks,

Stéphane


Le 09/04/09 15:49, « Edmon Chung » <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 
> Thanks Adrian.
> Hearing no objection regarding the scope of this drafting team, will use it as
> a set of references for the discussion.
> 
> 
> Would like to start the discussion on
> 1. Purpose
> 2. Scope
> of the IDNG WG itself (not this drafting team), if it is to be formed.  I
> think this would help set the basic framework and lead through parts of the
> discussion of whether such a group could be formed and be able to produce any
> meaningful work.
> 
> 
> Adapting from the IDNC WG charter (for your reference:
> http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/idnc-charter.htm), a possible description
> of the purpose of the IDNG WG if formed could be described as follows:
> 
> ========================
> 
> 1. Purpose
> 
> To meet community demand, gain experience in dealing with IDNs as gTLDs and to
> inform the implementation of IDN gTLDs in the New gTLD process currently under
> implementation, in the case that the New gTLD process itself is further
> delayed, a fast track approach to introduce a number of IDN gTLDs similar to
> the IDN ccTLD fast track is being considered.  Neither the New gTLD nor the
> IDN ccTLD Fast Track schedules should be delayed by the IDN gTLD Fast Track.
> 
> The purpose of the IDN gTLD Fast Track Working Group (IDNG WG) is to develop
> and report on feasible methods, if any, that would enable the introduction, in
> a timely manner and in a manner that ensures the continued security and
> stability of the Internet, a number of IDN gTLDs, limited in scope, while the
> overall New gTLD process is being implemented.
> 
> ========================
> 
> Note that there are a few important differences (from the IDNC) incorporated:
> - explanation that the IDN gTLD fast track should not delay the New gTLD or
> IDN ccTLD Fast Track schedules
> - explanation that the IDN gTLD fast track is considered "in case the New gTLD
> process itself is further delayed"
> - change of "limited number of non-contentious" to "limited in scope"  this
> reflects the learning that it is hard to define "limited number" and
> "non-contentious".  The idea is that rather than that, the IDNG WG should
> define a clear set of scope that could test whether an application would be
> within scope or not, with contentiousness likely being one criteria (more
> below).
> - notes that the concept is similar to the IDN ccTLD fast track
> 
> 
> 
> Adapting from the IDNC WG charter again, and expanding with specific regards
> to gTLDs, a possible draft for the scope of the IDNG WG charter could be
> described as follows:
> 
> ========================
> 
> 2. Scope
> 
> The scope of the IDNG WG is limited to developing feasible methods that do not
> pre-empt the implementation of the New gTLDs process.  The New gTLD process,
> when implemented, will cover both IDN and non-IDN gTLDs.
> 
> In considering feasible methods the IDNG WG should take into account and be
> guided by:
> - The overarching requirement to preserve the security and stability of the
> DNS;
> - Compliance with the IDNA protocols and ICANN IDN Guidelines;
> - Input and advice from the technical community in respect to the
> implementation of IDNs;
> - GSNO Policy Recommendations on New gTLDs
> (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm)
> - Draft New gTLD Applicant Guidebook
> (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-2-en.htm#expmem) and
> subsequent versions as they become available, along with corresponding
> comments received
> - Draft IDN ccTLD Fast Track Implementation Plan
> (http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-18feb09-en.htm) and
> subsequent versions as they become available, along with corresponding
> comments received
> 
> The IDNG WG is not tasked on policy development, and should refer to policy
> recommendations already produced by the GNSO, especially taking into
> consideration the GNSO IDN WG Final Outcomes report
> (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/idn-wg-fr-22mar07.htm).  The scope of the IDNG
> WG is limited to developing a feasible implementation framework for the
> implementation of an IDN gTLD Fast Track.
> 
> The IDNG WG should at a minimum address the following issues in its reports:
> - Definition of a limited scope for applicable IDN gTLDs for the Fast Track
> - Requirements for and evaluation of applicants for the Fast Track
> - Consideration for requirements of rights protection mechanisms
> - Where contention arise, how such contention could be addressed
> - Conditions under which an application may be deferred to the full New gTLD
> process
> 
> ========================
> 
> The list above is not intended to be exhaustive at the moment.  More items
> could be added as the IDNG WG commences its work.
> 
> 
> Thoughts/comments/additions/ideas on the above...
> 
> Edmon
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
>> Of Adrian Kinderis
>> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2009 7:45 PM
>> To: Edmon Chung; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] scope of discussion
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>