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

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Chuck,

Perhaps my reading of 4.1.4 is different from yours...
===
4.1.4. One String per new IDN gTLD:
Agreement that the approach of the New gTLD PDP with one string for each new
IDN gTLD application is relevant, except in the rare cases when there is a
need to cover script-specific character variants of an IDN gTLD string.
===

I am not sure what the problem is you see.  It does have provision for
variants.

As for 4.1.3, that is covered by language table requirements which is the
same case as IDN ccTLD Fast Track (and in fact incorporated into the New
gTLD Applicant Guidebook as well).

I am ok to delete or modify the sentence as suggested, but just want to
understand what your concerns may be.

Edmon






> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 2:37 AM
> To: Edmon Chung; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] Purpose & Scope of IDNG WG (if formed)
> 
> Edmon,
> 
> For the most part I think the following is very good, but I have serious
concerns
> about the following reference to the GNSO IDN WG in the next to last
paragraph:
> "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)."   It seems to me
that the
> following two items of agreement in that report could detract from what we
are
> trying to do:
> 
> - 4.1.3. Language Community Input for Evaluation of new IDN gTLD Strings
> 
> - 4.1.4. One String per new IDN gTLD
> 
> I think that 4.1.4 is the biggest problem but 4.1.3 could easily provide
some
> antagonistic language communities the opportunity to cause unreasonable
delays
> that could easily defeat the whole purpose of the gTLD IDN fast track.
> 
> I would suggest deleting the sentence in its entirety.  If we think that
addressing
> some of the areas of agreement from the IDN WG report is important, we
could
> identify those specific areas without referencing the report, but I
personally think that
> is unnecessary because the New gTLD recommendations incorporates the work
of
> the IDN WG report.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> -
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung
> > Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 5:59 AM
> > To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] Purpose & Scope of IDNG WG (if formed)
> >
> >
> > 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-08a
> > ug07.htm)
> > - Draft New gTLD Applicant Guidebook
> > (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-2-en.htm#ex
> > pmem) 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> >