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

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

It's Edmon's call.  I am willing to try to hash it out on the list.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 1:46 PM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] motion for IDNG WG formation
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> What is the purpose of the 90 minute call that Glen is trying 
> to plan in the next 72 hours?
> 
> I have forwarded below string to BC List and am soliciting 
> comments.  We have a draft Charter below, can't we hash it 
> out on this list, or is this call necessary?
> 
> Any further comments to the below exchange would be welcome 
> also, as the BC tries to decide whether to support a WG 
> Charter.  Adrian and Chuck both make very good points.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mike 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 5:40 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Edmon Chung; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] motion for IDNG WG formation
> 
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to clarify Chuck.
> 
> I'll give it due consideration (i.e. sleep on it) and get back to you.
> 
> I think it is a slippery slope if you start this, however, in 
> the scenario you suggest it could indeed be workable.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Adrian Kinderis
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, 3 June 2009 10:32 PM
> To: Adrian Kinderis; Edmon Chung; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] motion for IDNG WG formation
> 
> It's really not very complicated Adrian.
> 
> 1. The ideal approach for IDN TLDs is for both IDN ccTLDs and 
> IDN gTLDs to be launched at the same general time frame.  Two 
> reasons for this
> are: 1) To avoid giving either IDN ccTLDs or IDN gTLDs a 
> competitive advantage over the other for a service that has 
> had pent-up demand for years; 2) to give businesses and 
> organizations that provide services and/or products in 
> multiple countries to have a choice between registering their 
> names in either an IDN gTLD or in multiple IDN ccTLDs or 
> both.  Regarding the latter, the Arab region is a good 
> example; if I operate a business in multiple Arab countries, 
> I may prefer to register my name in the Arabic script in one 
> IDN gTLD rather than in multiple IDN ccTLDs; on the other 
> hand, if I only operate my business in one Arab country, I 
> might prefer to register it in the IDN ccTLD for that country.
> 
> 2. It now appears that IDN ccTLDs could be introduced 
> significantly sooner than new gTLDs, so there could be a gap 
> of 6 to 9 months between when IDN ccTLDs are implemented and 
> when IDN gTLDs are implemented, assuming that IDN gTLDs are 
> introduced as part of the overall new gTLD process as 
> originally planned.
> 
> 3. In case #2 happens, we could close the gap by having an 
> IDN gTLD fast tract process.
> 
> You are of course correct that the overarching issues and 
> other unresolved new gTLD implementation issues apply to IDN 
> gTLDs as well as to ASCII gTLDs.
> That is why any IDN gTLD fast track approach would have to 
> address those issues.  There are probably multiple ways that 
> could be handled; let me describe one possible scenario:  1) 
> Let's assume that IDN ccTLDs are introduced by 1 January 
> 2010; 2) let's also assume that the final DAG is approved in 
> December 2009 as currently projected and that the minimum 
> 4-month communication period starts then ; 3) an IDN gTLD 
> fast track process could be implemented on 1 January 2010 
> just like the IDN ccTLD fast track process at the beginning 
> of the communication period.  In this scenario, the final DAG 
> would apply to any IDN gTLDs that are approved.  There of 
> course could be different scenarios that would require other 
> approaches but it does not seem unreasonable to think that 
> processes could be developed to deal with them.
> 
> One question for you: Why should IDN ccTLDs get a first to 
> market advantage over IDN gTLDs?
> 
> Regarding your last question, why should IDN gTLDs have a 
> first to market advantage over ASCII gTLDs, I would say that 
> it is much less of a market advantage when comparing IDN TLDs 
> to ASCII TLDs than it is comparing IDN gTLDs to IDN ccTLDs.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 5:18 AM
> > To: Edmon Chung; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] motion for IDNG WG formation
> > 
> > 
> > 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).
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>