Re: [gnso-idng] reworking IDNG

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

Agreed.

Thanks for putting so much work and thought into this Edmon.

I will be travelling until I arrive in Sydney on Saturday evening so I won't
be able to follow this further until then.

See you all in Sydney.

Stéphane


Le 18/06/09 01:53, « Adrian Kinderis » <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
>