RE: [gnso-idng] motion for IDNG WG formation

[Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm sorry. I still don't get it.

I'm sorry I haven't been available for phone calls particularly those that fall 
on or after midnight (as every one has lately, my bad).

Can someone please explain to me, in simple terms, why this needs to proposed?

I understand completely that IDN ccTLD's should not delay the launch of IDN new 
gTLD's however this seems somewhat superfluous to this issue. If the ccNSO et 
al take too long sorting out their fast track process so be it. Their loss. Go 
forth gTLD (IDN or otherwise)

Why should IDN new gTLD's be launched *prior* to ascii gTLD's as is being 
suggested? Why don't the exact issues that are retarding the release of ascii 
gTLD's (the four overarching issues plus others) apply to IDN gTLD's? Are IDN's 
not subject to trademarks like ascii gTLD's or will they not be subject to 
second level issues (as proposed by the GAC)? Will registrants like McDonald's 
still have to register in every script to protect their brand and ignore any 
clearing house suggestion as proposed in the IRT Report?

What am I missing here?

I merely don't understand the point of why IDN gTLD's should get special 
treatment when they aren't special at all. Why should IDN gTLD's have any first 
to market advantage over ascii gTLD's?

Apologies if I am covering ground that is well travelled but I am at a loss 
with the logic.

As it stands I will be suggested to my Constituency to vote against any such 
motion.

Thanks.

  

Adrian Kinderis

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Edmon Chung
Sent: Wednesday, 3 June 2009 6:29 PM
To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-idng] motion for IDNG WG formation


Hi Everyone,

Below is a first stab at a possible motion to go with the IDNG charter.  Please 
take a look and make suggestions.

Edmon


========================================

WHEREAS:

The ICANN community has been discussing issues related to IDN and IDN TLDs 
since 2000, and the ICANN board as early as September 2000 recognized "that it 
is important that the Internet evolve to be more accessible to those who do not 
use the ASCII character set";

There is expressed demand from the community, especially from language 
communities around the world who do not use English or a Latin based script as 
a primary language, including the CJK (Chinese Japanese Korean) communities and 
the right-to-left directional script communities (e.g. Arabic, Hebrew, Persian, 
etc.), for advancing the introduction of Internationalized Top-Level Domains 
(IDN TLDs);

GNSO IDN WG successfully completed its outcomes report in March 2007 and the 
GNSO Council approved the incorporation of its findings in the GNSO Final 
Report on the Introduction of New gTLDs in September 2007, describing policy 
requirements for the introduction of IDN gTLDs;

The community observes the successful development of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track 
based on the IDNC WG recommendations, and the ongoing progress for the 
Implementation of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process;

The implementation of the New gTLD process is ongoing and the schedule and 
development of the implementation should continue;

GNSO Council had made comments in response to the ccNSO-GAC Issues Report on 
IDN Issues, as well as in its comments on the IDNC WG Final Report expressed 
that “the introduction of IDN gTLDs or IDN ccTLDs should not be delayed because 
of lack of readiness of one category, but if they are not introduced at the 
same time, steps should be taken so that neither category is advantaged or 
disadvantaged, and procedures should be developed to avoid possible conflicts”;

GNSO Council made a resolution in January 2009 to assert that “the GNSO Council 
strongly believes that neither the New gTLD or ccTLD fast track process should 
result in IDN TLDs in the root before the other unless both the GNSO and ccNSO 
so agree”;

An IDN gTLD Fast Track, if successfully implemented, could be introduced in 
close proximity with the IDN ccTLD Fast Track in the case that the New gTLD 
process is further delayed, and could address the concerns expressed by the 
GNSO Council regarding possible conflicts if IDN gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs are not 
introduced at the same time.


RESOLVED:

To recommend to the ICANN Board that an IDNG WG (Internationalized Generic 
Top-Level Domain Working Group) be formed under the Proposed Charter for the 
IDNG Working Group (IDNG WG).