RE: [gnso-idng] Process & Membership of IDNG WG

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

That seems to be a good suggestion.
Edmon



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 1:08 PM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] Process & Membership of IDNG WG
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> a manner of interaction they seem have used of late is that one or two,
> normally the chair or v-chairs participate as gateways to the rest of
> the GAC, forwarding messages in both directions.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 08:29 +0800, Edmon Chung wrote:
> > That is the suggestion...
> > Any number of GNSO Councillors and constituency members in fact.
> > And yes, any members of the GAC... the learning from the interaction at the
> > IDNC is that it makes it very difficult for the GAC to "select" people into
> > a WG.
> > Edmon
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On
> > Behalf
> > > Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> > > Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 1:17 AM
> > > To: Edmon Chung; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] Process & Membership of IDNG WG
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Edmon,
> > >
> > > I'm fine with your approach. On the membership, are you suggesting that
> > any
> > > number of GNSO Council members or GAC members be allowed in the WG?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Stéphane
> > >
> > >
> > > Le 17/04/09 12:03, « Edmon Chung » <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> > >
> > > >
> > > > With a potential (1) Purpose and (2) Scope drafted, would like to
> > consider 2
> > > > more things
> > > > 3. Process for the development of feasible methods for fast track
> > approach
> > > > 4. Membership of the IDNG Working Group
> > > >
> > > > Learning from the IDNC WG, I think we can produce 2 reports (instead of
> > 3 --
> > > > the IDNC Interim/Proposed Methodology and Final Report were similar).
> > > > Thereupon, a finalized "Final Report" could be presented for adoption by
> > GNSO
> > > > Council and the board.
> > > >
> > > > So, for 3. Process, adjusting from the IDNC WG, the IDNG WG would
> > produce 2
> > > > reports:
> > > > - IDNG Initial Report
> > > > - IDNG Final Report
> > > > Each should include a public comment period.
> > > >
> > > > - IDNG Initial Report
> > > > This would be a stock taking document identifying all the issues that
> > needs to
> > > > be taken into consideration (such as those raised by Stéphane and
> > others),
> > > > along with some possible options/principles for implementing an IDN gTLD
> > Fast
> > > > Track.
> > > >
> > > > - IDNG Final Report
> > > > The Final Report should review and analyze the comments received from
> > the
> > > > public comment period, and develop a set of principles and procedural
> > > > framework for implementing an IDN gTLD Fast Track. The Final Report
> > should
> > > > also take into consideration the then current drafts for IDN ccTLD Fast
> > Track
> > > > Implementation Draft and the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook to provide
> > specific
> > > > directives implementable by staff.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As for 4. Membership of the IDNG WG, a possible composition may be as
> > follows:
> > > >
> > > > Members of the GNSO and the GNSO Council;
> > > > Members of the GAC;
> > > > Two (2) members of the ccNSO;
> > > > Two (2) members of the At-Large and/or the ALAC;
> > > > One (1) representative of technical community;
> > > > One (1) member of the SSAC: and
> > > > Two (2) ICANN staff members.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > Edmon
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> >