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

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

Thanks for the thoughts Stephane.

I think all of us would be relatively happy if a decision was made to delay the 
IDN ccTLD fast track until the IDN gTLD process is ready, but it seems 
increasingly unlikely that that will happen because of the delays in the gTLD 
process.  At the same time, I think we should continue to push for that.

I believe there are two goals that all of us that have volunteered for this 
group agree on: 1) the gap between the introduction of new gTLDs (ASCII & IDN) 
and the initiation of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track process should be minimized; 2) 
new gTLDs of all types should be introduced as soon as possible as long as that 
is in a manner that contributes to security and stability and the process is 
done well.  If I am correct on that, there is another thing we could do that I 
think could contribute to both of these goals.

A long time ago we talked about the idea of initiating the Communications 
Period before the final DAG was approved.  As you know, the GNSO new gTLD 
recommendations call for a minimum 4-month Communications Period after the RFP 
is approved by the Board.  The GNSO Council could officially modify that 
recommendation to something like the following: "The formal Communications 
Period as recommended by the GNSO Council should be initiated NLT 1 October 
2009 and should end no earlier than 31 January 2009 or 30 days after final 
Board approval of the DAG, whichever is later."  We should recognize that those 
who do not want new gTLDs would likely not support this but I think there are 
chances that we could get a fairly strong majority of the Council to support 
something like this.

Thoughts?

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 6:35 AM
> To: Edmon Chung; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] motion for IDNG WG formation
> 
> 
> After reading and taking into consideration many of the 
> comments made on this, I have to admit that I think the idea 
> of an IDN gTLD fast-track is not a good one at this stage.
> 
> I can understand Adrian's argument that such a fast track 
> would probably "dilute" the main gTLD effort and, if it went 
> ahead, provide a good excuse for a lot of people to push for 
> further delays to that main process. For example, I can 
> easily see some people asking for a few months or even a few 
> years to give ICANN time to evaluate this "test bed" that an 
> IDN gTLD fast-track would be taken as being.
> 
> Further, I think that an IDN gTLD fast-track could only be 
> launched once all the overarching issues are resolved. And 
> when that's the case, then why not launch the full process anyway?
> 
> Some arguments have been made that an IDN gTLD fast-track is 
> a way to prevent the IDN ccTLDs from coming out first and 
> getting a time-to-market advantage. But surely that argument 
> could be turned around. The GNSO Council has repeatedly 
> stressed that it does not feel ccTLDs should be released 
> before gTLDs, and vice-versa. So why is it not simply a case 
> of the CCs waiting for the full gTLD program to be ready, 
> instead of the Gs "hatching"
> a fast-track? Surely not doing a gTLD fast-track and 
> insisting that the IDN ccTLDs only come out at the same time 
> as the gTLDs is another way of keeping pressure on ICANN to 
> launch the new gTLD program in a timely manner. There's 
> strong pressure from the governments to have their IDN ccTLDs 
> sooner rather than later...
> 
> On the plus side, I understand the desire to have certain 
> types of gTLDs that are ready for launch not be delayed by 
> others that may still be too problematic. This is what I have 
> been advocating for CityTLDs for example, as when they are 
> supported by the relevant city's government, they are 
> probably some of the simplest TLD initiatives to validate. So 
> the desire to not have IDN gTLDs delayed by the full program 
> is understandable. But the problem is that IDNs encompass all 
> types of gTLDs, so you could have "simple" ones like CityTLDs 
> and more complex applications that would require lengthy validation.
> 
> So we're back to the basic problem that an IDN gTLD 
> fast-track is too much of a "mini-me" full gTLD program. If 
> the fast-track is ready, you might as well launch the full 
> program. If it's not because there's still some issues to 
> iron out, the aren't we better off devoting all our resources 
> to solving them for the full program?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> 
> Le 07/06/09 01:14, « Edmon Chung » <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> 
> > 
> > After thinking about this for a few months, I think I disagree and 
> > think it in fact could do the opposite.
> > 
> > I think the act of moving forward with a possible Fast Track may 
> > encourage ICANN staff to keep the Full New gTLD process on track.
> > 
> > It could put the pressure on ICANN to make the New gTLD 
> process happen 
> > so that there is no need to actually implement another Fast 
> Track. :-)
> > 
> > Edmon
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> >> Behalf Of Avri Doria
> >> Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2009 2:51 AM
> >> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] motion for IDNG WG formation
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 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).
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>