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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This looks pretty good to me Edmon.  The only question I have is this:
would it be more timely for the Council to form a WG instead of waiting
for the Board to approve it.  If we go the Board route, it will take at
least a month before they can approve it and maybe longer. Then once a
proposal is developed we would again have to wait for Board approval.
It seems to me we could save at least a month and maybe more if we form
the WG ourselves and get it started right away.

I understand that this is a variation from the IDNC approach, but I
think that time is critical.

Thoughts?

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 4:29 AM
> 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).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>