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

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The idea for limiting participation for the IDNC was, I think, to contain the 
discussion.  It sounds reasonable for the IDNG to be more open.  How about:

- Members of the GNSO and the GNSO Council;
- Members of the GAC;
- Members of the ccNSO;
- Members of the At-Large and ALAC;
- At least one (1) representative from the technical community;
- At least one (1) member of the SSAC; and,
- And two (2) ICANN staff members.

Edmon




> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 12:11 AM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] Process & Membership of IDNG WG
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I am not really presuming to suggest ow the GAc particpate, just giving
> my guess at how they might participate if the WG is formed, we invite
> them to do so and they endorse the idea by agreeing to participate at
> all.  It is also possible that they would decline to particpate and one
> or more would participate in their personal capacity.
> 
> Another question I have is why do we wish to limit participation.  I
> know others have and continue to do so (e.g. the ccNSO ivitation for 2
> GNSO members to participate in their PDP process), but does it fit with
> the open philosophy the GNSO has been taking in most activities?
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 23:27 +0800, Edmon Chung wrote:
> > 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
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >