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

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I see your point.  It is possible, but in reality, there will be a limited
number of participants I think.  And the point Avri and Chuck made is quite
valid in that we should try to make the process more open (than the IDNC).
Perhaps we could limit the membership for the 2 areas:
- One (1) representative from the technical community;
- One (1) member of the SSAC;

This should be reasonable given that the IDNG WG would make use of most of
the work already done and focus on a possible implementation mechanism, also
that membership from GNSO and At-Large is open.

In addition, I think it may be useful to add a sentence at the end so that
the WG could punt issues that are out of scope:
==========================
If issues become apparent to the IDNG WG that are outside of its scope of
devising feasible implementation mechanism, it should report and defer those
issues back to the GNSO Council.
==========================

For example, for those who may be asking for revising or changing previous
policy recommendations from the GNSO (including New gTLDs and IDNs), those
would be out of scope so that the group could focus on developing an
implementation mechanism based on the already agreed upon policies.

Edmon



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 6:46 AM
> To: Edmon Chung; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] Process & Membership of IDNG WG
> 
> If it's presented in this way, the WG could potentially be huge and
> difficult to manage.
> 
> I think participation should be more limited than this, not in terms of
the
> groups which can participate but in terms of the number of representatives
> from these groups which would be accepted.
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> 
> Le 19/04/09 03:34, « Edmon Chung » <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> 
> >
> > 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
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >