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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Edmon,

In general, I support fast-track processes if they can help bring out
certain types of gTLDs that need not be delayed by the overall process.

I am thinking here more of geographic names for example.

My problem with extending this to IDNs is that they are so wide ranging.
They don't constitute a sub-gTLD category as such in my view. What I mean is
that you can have an IDN gTLD for a City (and that would IMO warrant a
fast-track in the face of undue delays to the general gTLD program) but also
for a product name for example. In this second example, I don't see how a
fast-track can be justified for this sort of name.

Thanks,

Stéphane


Le 09/04/09 19:36, « Edmon Chung » <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

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