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

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Stéphane,
Perhaps you have one thing confused...  This drafting team is NOT the IDNG
WG, but a drafting team for a charter of a potential IDNG WG.
What I have been proposing is a purpose and scope for a charter for an IDNG
WG.
I do not dispute the POSSIBILITY that the Full New gTLD process MAY be done
before the IDNG WG can produce and complete its mission, HOWEVER, that does
not either preclude to possibility that it may.
The discussion here is a groundwork for IF there would be further delays, we
would have something in place.  I think everyone agrees that the best case
scenario is where we would have the New gTLD process completed.  HOWEVER, if
we NEVER start this discussion we would NEVER make up the time.  Therein
lies the arguement for spending some time to start this discussion in
preparation for the worst case.
Edmon



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf
> Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 11:02 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Edmon Chung; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Purpose & Scope of IDNG WG [RE: [gnso-idng] scope of
discussion]
> 
> 
> Thanks Chuck.
> 
> See this is where the issue gets unclear to me. There is indeed a clear
> position from the GNSO Council that IDN gTLDs and ccTLDs should be
released
> at the same time. This having been said with no reference (if memory
serves)
> to any fast-track on one side or the other. But as there is already a very
> official initiative to launch an IDN ccTLD fast-track, one would then have
> to assume that the Council in stating that both g and ccs should be done
at
> the same time, is asking for a fast-track for IDN gTLDs.
> Yet we have never really done so.
> 
> So looking at how much time has already been spent on the IDN ccTLD fast
> track, I am worried that if this WG is only now starting to look at the
> possibility of an IDN gTLD fast-track, the new gTLDs will actually already
> be online by the time this work is done.
> 
> But maybe I'm being a little over-pessimistic here.
> 
> My suggestion: let's make it clear that we are, or are not, as a WG,
working
> to structure and propose a fast-track for IDN gTLDs.
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> 
> Le 09/04/09 16:38, « Gomes, Chuck » <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> 
> > 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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>