RE: [gnso-idng] Draft Charter for an IDNG WG
Thanks Edmon. I made some suggested edits and inserted a couple comments that are highlighted in the attached file. I intentionally did not send this to the Council list because I thought it was too late to modify the document you just sent to the Council. At best, I think the Council discussion this week will be at a high level so the DT can consider my suggested edits after we see what comes out of the Council discussion. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: Edmon Chung [mailto:edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:15 AM > To: 'Adrian Kinderis'; Gomes, Chuck; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] Draft Charter for an IDNG WG > > 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 with Gomes edits.doc
|