RE: [gnso-idng] reworking IDNG

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Based on the renewed concept, please see attached a Draft3 of the IDNG charter 
which would have the adjusted purposes of:
1. Feasible methods and measures for harmonizing the introduction of new IDN 
TLDs (including both new IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs)
2. Identify and provide implementation recommendations common across IDN TLDs 
(including ccTLDs and gTLDs)

Have also reworked the scope section and adjusted the background section to 
incorporate the ideas.

Edmon




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 7:53 AM
> To: Edmon Chung; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] reworking IDNG
> 
> This seems like a reasonable approach Edmon.
> 
> Adrian Kinderis
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Edmon Chung
> Sent: Thursday, 18 June 2009 9:27 AM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-idng] reworking IDNG
> 
> 
> Hi Everyone,
> 
> Given that most are already or commencing their travel to Sydney, perhaps it 
> is
> best we further discuss the item on Sunday at the scheduled slot for IDN.
> Therefore, it is probably best that no motion will be circulated to the 
> council yet.
> 
> Based on the discussions we have had so far there seems to be strongest
> interest to:
> - seek / express emphasis, on the parity/fairness between the introduction of 
> IDN
> ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs.  In my mind, the IDN gTLD Fast Track (whether or not it
> is implemented) was one option/attempt to drive that demand and to offer a
> possible remedy.
> 
> The concerns for an IDN gTLD Fast Track meanwhile is mainly on:
> - whether it will further delay the full new gTLD process.  And measures to 
> avoid
> such delays if an IDN gTLD Fast Track is being considered.
> 
> Floating this discussion to others in the community, I have also gotten strong
> feedback about the problems for potential IDN gTLD applicants given the
> currently drafted implementation (i.e. applicant guidebook).  More 
> importantly on:
> - the implementation of variant management at the root (i.e. for IDN TLDs)
> - considerations given to IDN TLDs that purport to mean the same and to serve
> the same community as another ASCII or IDN TLD
> - and of course the ongoing issue of the minimum number of IDN characters
> allowed for an IDN TLD
> 
> 
> Bringing the thoughts expressed together, perhaps we could proceed with the
> following 3 areas:
> 1. Re-emphasizing the importance of parity in the source of funding for IDN
> ccTLD activities
> 2. Actions to harmonize the introduction of new IDN TLDs, including both new 
> IDN
> ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs
> 3. Implementation recommendations for introduction of IDN TLDs
> 
> Given the above, I think it may make sense to re-draft the charter for an 
> IDNG WG
> such that it would NOT only seek a Fast Track approach but would address 2.
> and 3. above to include:
> - Possible solution/recommendation for the harmonization of the introduction 
> of
> new IDN TLDs, between new IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs (with one possible
> action being an IDN gTLD Fast Track but not necessarily so)
> - Implementation recommendations for introduction of IDN TLDs, including both
> IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs
> Both of which could be proceeded based on policy recommendations for IDNs
> already produced, and aimed to provide implementation recommendations.
> 
> And then also to have a resolution at the GNSO council regarding 1.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Edmon
> 
>

Attachment: IDNG Charter DRAFT3.doc
Description: MS-Word document