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

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

Let's see what others on this list have to say.  I am willing to go with
whatever most think best.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:23 AM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] motion for IDNG WG formation
> 
> 
> 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).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> 
>