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

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Stéphane,
Just to clarify, the previous was a proposed purpose of the IDNG WG if it is
formed (and not the purpose of this drafting team)
Given that context, the concept is that, IF the new gTLD process is further
delayed, an IDN gTLD fast track may be a good idea
What are your thoughts on that?
Edmon




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