Re: [gnso-idng] IDNG WG Motion Draft2

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

After discussing this with our constituency, we feel that such a motion
should not be submitted at this time.

The RrC still does not see the rationale for an IDN gTLD fast-track and
feels that such a fast-track would risk causing further delays to the new
gTLD program as a whole.

The RrC feels that the GNSO Council's main focus should be on ensuring no
further delays to the new gTLD program, not creating new possibilities to
sidetrack the program.

We understand Edmon's desire to ensure that IDN ccTLDs do not come to market
before the Gs and feel that it is this argument that the GNSO Council should
be pushing to the Board. However, we do not think that a proposed fast-track
for IDN gTLDs achieves this. Instead, we fear that such a fast-track would
create more implementation problems than it would solve.

There are more and more voices in the community calling for classes to be
integrated in the DAG so that those types of gTLDs that are less
"problematic" aren't delayed while an all-encompassing solution is found to
all the problems that all TLDs might pose. In this light we feel that,
although the IDN gTLD fast-track proposal is not supposed to be a separate
gTLD class, it may be perceived as one.

The topic of classes as a whole is certainly one worthy of further
discussion and doing so may also help clarify the position the Council could
take on an IDN gTLD fast-track.

So at this stage, we would like to respectfully suggest that further
discussion be organised around these topics and that the proposed motion be
held back until then.

As it stands, the RrC would vote against the proposed motion.

Thanks,

Stéphane


Le 15/06/09 21:13, « Gomes, Chuck » <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 
> Edmon,
> 
> I would like to suggest some possible changes to the motion for everyone
> on this list to consider:
> 
> 1. Delete the last 'Whereas clause ("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.").  My rationale: Based on discussions on
> this list, it seems that it might be better to not restrict the options
> to consideration of an IDN gTLD Fast Track.
> 
> 2. Change the second resolution to "To emphasize to the ICANN Board that
> the full New gTLD process must not be delayed because of work of the
> IDNG WG or the subsequent implementation of any IDNG WG recommendations
> if they are accepted."  Note that I deleted "and to implement the IDNG
> WG recommendations only if the acceptance of IDN gTLD Fast Track
> applications is at least 6 months before the then anticipated deadline
> for applications for the first round of the full new gTLD process." My
> rationale: Same as above.
> 
> The charter would also have to be modified to emphasize an "IDN gTLD
> Fast Track or other possible ways to minimize the gap between the
> introduction of IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs."
> 
> Chuck
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung
>> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 9:52 AM
>> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] IDNG WG Motion Draft2
>> 
>> 
>> Oops, pressed send prematurely (meant to press save):
>> I meant to incorporate the concerns expressed:
>> 1. that there should be substantial time before the full new
>> gtld process is implemented 2. that there be no delay for the
>> full new gtld process 3. that we do not waste time waiting
>> for the ICANN board deliberations
>> 
>> Some additions below as well (to complete the proposed motion wording)
>> 
>> Edmon
>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On
>>> Behalf Of Edmon Chung
>>> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 9:31 PM
>>> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: [gnso-idng] IDNG WG Motion Draft2
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi Everyone,
>>> 
>>> Based on the discussion earlier, I have added 3 additional
>> elements to 
>>> the motion to incorporate the concerns:
>>> 1. that
>>> 2. that no delay
>>> 3.
>>> 
>>> Basically to add 2 more points to the motion (first point below was
>>> not changed from version 1 of the draft motion):
>>> 
>>> - 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).
>>> 
>>> - To emphasize to the ICANN Board that the full New gTLD
>> process must 
>>> not be delayed because of work of the IDNG WG or the subsequent
>>> implementation of the IDNG WG recommendations if they are accepted,
>>> and to implement the IDNG WG recommendations only if the
>> acceptance of 
>>> IDN gTLD Fast Track applications is at least 6 months
>> before the then 
>>> anticipated
>> 
>> deadline for applications for the first round of the full new
>> gTLD process.
>> 
>>> 
>>> - To initiate a GNSO Working Group as a preparation group
>> to start the 
>>> discussions, and which should merge into the IDNG WG when formed by
>>> the ICANN Board.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Below is the revised motion (basically added the above to
>> the previous version).
>>> 
>>> Of course, comments welcome on mailing list.
>>> 
>>> Lets also try to have a conference call this week if
>> possible suggested 1hr within:
>>> Wed OR Thu (June 17/18) 21:00-24:00 UTC (=5-8AM next day
>> HKT / 7-10AM 
>>> next day Sydney / 2-5PM PT / 5-8PM ET / 11PM-2AM Paris
>> time) Hope the 
>>> times could work for most...
>>> 
>>> Glen, could you please help setup a doodle for the meeting and
>>> subsequently the conf call.  Thanks so much.
>>> 
>>> 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).
>>> 
>>> - To emphasize to the ICANN Board that the full New gTLD
>> process must 
>>> not be delayed because of work of the IDNG WG or the subsequent
>>> implementation of the IDNG WG recommendations if they are accepted,
>>> and to implement the IDNG WG recommendations only if the
>> acceptance of 
>>> IDN gTLD Fast Track applications is at least 6 months
>> before the then 
>>> anticipated
>> 
>> deadline for applications for the first round of the full new
>> gTLD process.
>> 
>>> 
>>> - To initiate a GNSO Working Group as a preparation group
>> to start the 
>>> discussions, and which should merge into the IDNG WG when formed by
>>> the ICANN Board.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>