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

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

Maybe I misinterpreted it Edmon.  I think I read it to mean one IDN string per 
gTLD, which appears not to be what was meant.  If that is the case, then there 
may not be a need to delete the sentence.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung
> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 8:29 PM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] Purpose & Scope of IDNG WG (if formed)
> 
> 
> 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> 
> 
>