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

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

Okay.  I will watch for the meeting info.  What is the agenda for the
call?
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: gisella.gw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:gisella.gw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

        Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:46 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx; Edmon Chung;
Gisella Gruber-White; icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] motion for IDNG WG formation
        
        
        He then said to go ahead with the call as we had set up the
Doodle and had responses.
        
        Kind regards
        Gisella 

        Sent from my BlackBerry(r) wireless device

        
________________________________

        From: "Gomes, Chuck" 
        Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 07:42:26 -0400
        To: Edmon Chung<edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Gisella
Gruber-White<Gisella.Gruber-White@xxxxxxxxx>; <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx>
        Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] motion for IDNG WG formation
        

        

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