CANCELLATION of this week's phone conference [RE: [gnso-idng] motion for IDNG WG formation]

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sorry about the confusion.

Lets regroup and NOT have the phone conference meeting yet.

I think the current discussion on the mailing list is constructive and we
can continue that.

>From there, we can better develop the agenda for a call either next week or
the week after (the week before our face-to-face meeting).

Edmon

 

 

 

 

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2009 7:51 PM
To: gisella.gw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx; Edmon Chung;
Gisella Gruber-White; icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] motion for IDNG WG formation

 

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® 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).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>