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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Chuck,

I think that's an excellent suggestion. Unless I'm mistaken, it's something
that we have discussed before at council level and I was already in favour
of it then. I would like to see, or be happy to propose, a motion along
those lines.

Stéphane


Le 07/06/09 15:41, « Gomes, Chuck » <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

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