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

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

I'm confused.  In a later message, Edmon said we would do on the list.
Which is it?
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: Edmon Chung [mailto:edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:27 PM
        To: 'Gisella Gruber-White'; Gomes, Chuck; icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] motion for IDNG WG formation
        
        

        Ok, I can do it at the time.

        Lets go forward with the call.

        Thanks.

        Edmon

         

         

         

        From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gisella Gruber-White
        Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2009 5:52 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] motion for IDNG WG formation

         

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