RE: [gnso-idng] Draft Charter for an IDNG WG
Here is an updated version incorporating comments from Chuck and Stéphane. Edmon > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder > Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 10:00 PM > To: Gomes, Chuck; Edmon Chung; Adrian Kinderis; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: 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 DRAFT2.1.doc
|