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