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

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Right Avri :-)
And the intent of this discussion is to see whether we can find a position
that is agreeable to most to proceed on a possible IDNG WG.
I am aware of the scepticism...  However, as I started off describing, the
test is whether an IDNG WG (that looks like the IDNC WG) could be formed
with a meaningful agenda.  And that, in my mind, depends on whether the
scope and purpose of the group is well formed.
That is the gist of the proposed discussion.
Edmon



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf
> Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 10:15 PM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Purpose & Scope of IDNG WG [RE: [gnso-idng] scope of
discussion]
> 
> 
> hi,
> 
> i think the point of the DT is to come up with a document that the
> council would vote on.
> 
> I think many are skeptical about the idea, but the council did seem to
> indicate a willingness to have a DT discuss the issue and see if
> anything can be proposed.
> 
> As I have told Edmon privately, I count myself among the skeptical but
> willing to talk crowd.
> 
> a.
> 
> On 9 Apr 2009, at 10:01, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> 
> >
> > 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >