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

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

Stephane,

The main reason in my opinion for considering a possible fast track for IDN 
gTLDs are: 1) to avoid the possible competitive advantage of fast track IDN 
ccTLDs if the IDN ccTLD Fast Track process starts before the New gTLD process; 
2) to allow registrants who operate across multiple ccTLD regions to have the 
option of registering their names in one IDN gTLD instead of multiple IDN 
ccTLDs. I don't think there is a competition issues with regard to geographic 
names; I don't believe they will be disadvantaged in any specific way if the 
IDN ccTLD Fast Track process starts before the New gTLD process because the IDN 
ccTLD Fast Track process will contain a very limited set of names that will 
include only variations of country names.

The goal in my understanding is not to mitigate delays in the New gTLD process 
in a general sense but rather to consider whether to try to mitigate impacts if 
the IDN ccTLD Fast Tract and the New gTLD processes do not start at the same 
time.

As soon as we try to mitigate delays of the New gTLD process in a general 
sense, every interested party is going push for fast tracks of their category 
of names.  What reason would we have for expediting city names versus brand 
names or previously applied for gTLDs, etc.?  Every interested group would I am 
sure argue that there is no reason to delay their category of names.  I 
understand the motivation in that regard but don't see how we good justify it 
equitably.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 4:03 AM
> To: Edmon Chung; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Purpose & Scope of IDNG WG [RE: [gnso-idng] 
> scope of discussion]
> 
> 
> 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.h
> >>> tm)
> >>> - 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
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>