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

[Gisella Gruber-White <Gisella.Gruber-White@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Edmon,

Would you be so kind as to confirm whether this call is still required?

We currently have 4 responses to the Doodle and the preferred time would be 
tomorrow, Thursday 04 June at 2200 UTC.

I will send out the call details as soon as I hear back from you.

Thank you
Kind regards
Gisella


On 03/06/2009 18:57, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



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).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>