ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-idng]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-idng] Draft Charter for an IDNG WG

  • To: "'Adrian Kinderis'" <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Gomes, Chuck'" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] Draft Charter for an IDNG WG
  • From: "Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 17:15:01 +0800

Hi Adrian,

Sorry for the slow response, was out of action for a few days due to a very
potent virus.

> When are we next meeting (teleconference again?)?
> Hopefully in hours that are conducive to AEST.

Should try to arrange one after this week's council meeting I think, maybe
next week.

> To preview my feelings on the group;
> 
> What is the difference between an IDN gTLD and an ASCII gTLD and why would
it
> be sufficient to require a fast track? Just because they are different
scripts
> doesn't mean they don't suffer the same issues with trademark infringement
etc
> that new ASCII gTLD are currently managing.

This is one of the issues the IDNG WG need to discussed, as expressed in the
scope:
• Consideration for requirements of rights protection mechanisms

I do think there is a potential difference especially for existing gTLDs
seeking an equivalent IDN TLD, and for IDN gTLDs with TLD strings that
represent unique concepts of the given language.  That being said, I think
this discussion may be premature because it should be had at the WG instead
of here.  And I do think if we define the scope carefully, we can deal with
this to the satisfaction of the concerned stakeholders.


> IDN ccTLD are able to fast track because they are able to define their
area from
> an existing list (and are finite). The same could not be said for IDN
gTLD's.

We could limit the IDN gTLD Fast Track to a specific scope.  Which is one of
the key jobs for the IDNG WG to figure out if formed.

> 
> I would have more preference for a geo TLD fast track as there is a finite
groups
> and ICANN staff (and GNSO Council) have done well to define the rules and
> restrictions around their take up.

The issue of IDN gTLDs have been in discussion since 2000!! From there,
multiple policy papers, issue papers, workshops, sessions, board resolutions
have been done.  This is an issue of significant urgency for the language
communities around the world.  The same cannot be said for geo TLDs, where
no policy development has been pursued.  That topic has only been introduced
very recently.  I am certainly not against geo TLDs, in fact I am a big
proponent for it, but I think we need to separate the two issues.  And given
the long standing of the IDN discussion there is little question in my mind
that there should be some priority.


Attached is the updated IDNG Charter Draft2, including discussions from the
call:
1. consideration of different types of TLDs for the WG
2. that should be implemented comfortably ahead of the full New gTLD process
3. explanation in background describing the urgency for IDN gTLDs

Will also circulate it to the council list.

Edmon




> 
> Anyway, just a few thought to get the ball rolling.
> 
> Adrian Kinderis
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Saturday, 25 April 2009 5:12 AM
> To: Edmon Chung; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] Draft Charter for an IDNG WG
> 
> Thanks Edmon.  I made a few edits that are highlighted in the attached
file.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung
> > Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 7:53 AM
> > To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [gnso-idng] Draft Charter for an IDNG WG
> >
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> > Based on the discussion so far, and appropriating much from the IDNC
> > Charter (for your easy reference:
> > http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/idnc-charter.htm),
> > please find attached a draft charter for an IDNG WG.
> >
> > Basically, have incorporated the discussion we had regarding:
> > 1. Purpose
> > 2. Scope
> > 3. Process
> > 4. Membership
> >
> > And added
> > 5. Timeline
> > 6. Background & References
> >
> > Perhaps we should try to organize a conference call to talk about the
> > document sometime next week...
> >
> > Edmon
> >
> >
> > PS. Glen, would it be possible to help try to coordinate a possible
> > call (for ~1.5hrs) for next week... My own availability are as
> > follows:
> > Mon/Tue/Fri between 1100-1500ET (1500-1900UTC)
> >
> >
> >

Attachment: IDNG WG Charter DRAFT2.doc
Description: MS-Word document



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy