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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I have had similar concerns.

a.


On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 10:08 +1000, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
> A further point after some sleep.
> 
> Doesn't segmenting and effectively 'phasing' the release of gTLDs take some 
> of the pressure off the ASCII gTLD release.
> 
> I would have thought that we would have wanted to maintain maximum pressure 
> on the ICANN Board and Staff to keep momentum up. By taking away one of the 
> strongest impetuses we have, in IDN gTLDs, you effectively dilute this 
> pressure.
> 
> Further, I fear that it could possibly be seen that an early release of IDN 
> gTLD's could be considered a 'beta release' for the process, with potential 
> delays and issues delaying the process adn subsequent launch of ASCII new 
> gTLD's further.
> 
> Thanks.    
> 
>  
> Adrian Kinderis
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
> Of Mike Rodenbaugh
> Sent: Thursday, 4 June 2009 3:46 AM
> 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).
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>