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

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ok.  I guess we can leave it open and just go with:
- Representatives from the technical community;
- Members of the SSAC

Edmon



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 11:29 AM
> To: Edmon Chung; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] Process & Membership of IDNG WG
> 
> Avri makes a good point about limiting participation; we were upset with
the IDNC
> limitations so we have the opportunity to demonstrate more openness now.
> 
> I would avoid saying "at least one" because that means a minimum of one;
if a
> group refuses to provide one, then we would not meet the requirements.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung
> > Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 9:35 PM
> > To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] Process & Membership of IDNG WG
> >
> >
> > 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
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >