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

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

Stephane,

Please see my comments below.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 10:02 AM
> To: Edmon Chung; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Purpose & Scope of IDNG WG [RE: [gnso-idng] 
> scope of discussion]
> 
> 
> 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."

Chuck: Maybe a better way to express this would be to say "in case there is a 
significant gap between the introduction of fast track IDN ccTLDs and the 
introduction of IDN gTLDs".

> 
> 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...

Chuck: You are corect that the Council hasn't taken a position on this; the 
purpose of this informal group is to explore whether we can develop a possible 
position that the Council could consider.  But it should also be noted that the 
Council has taken a clear position that IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs should be 
introduced at the same time and the GNSO and ccNSO have agreed to set up a 
joint group to discuss the timing issue.

> 
> 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
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>