Re: [gnso-idng] IDNG WG Motion Draft2

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

Hi Edmon,

Your motion proposes that a recommendation be sent to the Board to begin
work on a fast-track through the creation of a WG. We see a couple of
potential problems:
1. This sends a signal that instead of just concentrating on the full
program, the GNSO Council would like see a sidetrack program begin.
2. The Council feels that resources (both human and financial) should be
devoted to this side program. This, we fear, may take away from the main
program.

Once again, if the issue at hand is one of possible classes, then why not
discuss it?

But your resolution has the Council going straight to the Board and asking
for fast-track to be created specifically for IDNs. We feel this is
premature at this stage.

Thanks,

Stéphane


Le 16/06/09 18:03, « Edmon Chung » <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> Hi Stéphane,
> 
> May I ask if it is the question of:
> 1. IF the IDNG is IMPLEMENTED,
> OR
> 2. if the IDNG is being DISCUSSED.
> 
> Cause it seems to me they are very different things....
> 
> We can manage 1. by making sure that the implementation is not pursued IF
> and ONLY IF the new gtld process is much further delayed.
> 
> Whereas for 2... I am uncertain what the rationale is and why we should not
> even prepare ourselves to be in a position for it...
> 
> Edmon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On
>> Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 11:36 PM
>> To: Gomes, Chuck; Edmon Chung; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] IDNG WG Motion Draft2
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Chuck,
>> 
>> No, that's not the RrC's position. Our position is that the fast track,
> far
>> from being the only way to close the gap, is instead a sure way to widen
> it
>> by increasing the workload needed to bring the new gTLD program online.
>> 
>> We feel that the GNSO Council should fight to prevent IDN ccTLDs from
> being
>> released before the Gs. One question (a personal one) that I'm asking
> myself
>> for example is: has the Council been vocal enough in saying this?
>> 
>> But in any case, we think asking for a fast-track of our own would only
>> complicate matters.
>> 
>> Happy to answer any further questions if the above isn't clear.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Stéphane
>> 
>> 
>> Le 16/06/09 17:22, « Gomes, Chuck » <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
>> 
>>> Stephane,
>>> 
>>> I assume you mean you disagree with the rationale that has been
> explained.  In
>>> other words, if the only way to close the gap is a fast track, you would
>>> rather have the IDN ccTLDs go ahead of IDN gTLDs, even if it did not
> cause
>> any
>>> delays to the overall new gTLD process?
>>> 
>>> Just trying to make sure I am clear.
>>> 
>>> Chuck
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 11:03 AM
>>>> To: Gomes, Chuck; Edmon Chung; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] IDNG WG Motion Draft2
>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
> 
>