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

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

If people think a GNSO WG would be able to produce an implementation plan
that the Board would then be willing to adopt and direct staff to implement
I don't really have a problem with it.
The reason to involve the Board early is to ensure an implementation pathway
that could be similar to the IDNC.
Edmon




> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 8:55 PM
> To: Edmon Chung; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] motion for IDNG WG formation
> 
> 
> 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).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >