RE: [gnso-idng] Purpose & Scope of IDNG WG (if formed)

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In that case, it seems we have a workable draft purpose and scope for a
potential charter for the IDNG WG:

=============================

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, a fast track approach to introduce a number of IDN
gTLDs similar to the IDN ccTLD fast track is being considered in this IDN
gTLD Fast Track Working Group (IDNG WG).  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.


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
- Types of IDN gTLDs acceptable for the IDN gTLD 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

=============================

Edmon




> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf
> Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:49 PM
> To: Edmon Chung; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] Scope of IDNG WG (if formed)
> 
> 
> Thanks for that suggestion Edmon. That would do me fine.
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> 
> Le 14/04/09 03:05, « Edmon Chung » <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> 
> >
> > Hi Stéphane,
> >
> > As mentioned in the earlier thread at the council, I am not against the
> > discussion of geographic names :-)
> > The focus of this particular discussion however is IDN gTLDs.
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > On this particular point, I think it should be a good topic for
discussion
> > of the details at the IDNG WG.
> > In general, I agree that we should develop a reasonably tight scope for
the
> > IDN gTLD fast track if it is to be implemented successfully.
> >
> > I had proposed the following with regards to the scope (of the WG) as
> > follows:
> >
> >>> 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
> >
> > Perhaps we could add a more specific item to address your concern:
> >
> > - Types of IDN gTLDs acceptable for the IDN gTLD Fast Track
> >
> >
> > Edmon
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >