Re: [gnso-idng] Draft Charter for an IDNG WG
Great work Edmon. Just a additional comment as far as I'm concerned. Just trying to make the document easier to understand/follow for the initiated. Thanks. Stéphane Le 27/05/09 14:52, « Gomes, Chuck » <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit : > 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 SVG edits.doc
|