RE: [gnso-idng] Recap of Sydney discussions

[Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>]

Edmon and all,

Regarding the Board's resolution on Internationalized Registration Data, policy 
staff is preparing a draft proposed plan for implementing the Resolution for 
SSAC and GNSO review and further action. We hope to have a first draft for 
community consideration shortly, but we are mindful that we also have a 
proposed GNSO "technical analysis" to conduct on the impact of non-ASCII 
registration information on accuracy and readability, that is closely related 
to this effort. We would like to consider further whether the working group 
called for in the Board resolution should be convened before or after the 
"technical analysis" or whether the working group should be considering or 
conducting the technical analysis as part of its charter.  We are also 
considering several activities for future consideration and planning, including 
a webinar that we might conduct in August on the SSAC paper, and reserving 
sufficient time for a community discussion/workshop on the broader topic in 
Seoul.  

We are also mindful that the Board has requested that the new working group be 
populated with expert/knowledgeable participants, so availability of community 
resources will factor into the timing of the group's work.  Your thoughts and 
the thoughts of the group would be most welcome, and we look forward to 
providing further information shortly.

Thanks, Liz

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Edmon Chung
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 1:54 AM
To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-idng] Recap of Sydney discussions


Hi Everyone,

Apologies again for the long silence after the Sydney meetings.  Was looking to 
wait for some indications of next step from ICANN staff after the directives 
presented at the Board Meeting (including IDN Registration Data and the work 
team work for new IDN TLDs).  Nevertheless, will continue to push forward.  In 
any case, I think it is great to see the Board taking notice of the issues we 
have been discussing about, especially those relating to New IDN TLDs, 
regardless if they are new IDN ccTLDs or new IDN gTLDs.

OK. We had a very good meeting in Sydney on June 21, the transcript can be 
found at: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-idn-group-21jun09.pdf
We also had a good discussion at the GNSO-CCNSO lunch on June 22 regarding this 
topic.  And also a discussion at the GNSO council meeting on June 24: 
http://syd.icann.org/files/meetings/sydney2009/transcript-gnso-council-24jun09-en.txt.

Subsequently, I have corresponded with Zhang Jian of CCNSO to further the 
discussion on putting together a Joint CCNSO-GNSO IDN WG (will call it JIG 
unless someone doesn't like it...).  From the discussion, it quickly became 
apparent that while there is interest to discuss issues of common interest, 
there is significant push back about discussing the issue of timing (of the 
introduction of IDN TLDs into the root).  It seems we will have to decouple the 
discussions afterall:
1. Coordination on introduction of IDN TLDs into the Root
2. Issues of common interest related to implementation of IDN TLDs


Will talk about 2. first.
Based on my discussion with Jian, the conceptual framework of the purpose and 
scope of the JIG would be something as follows:
- Purpose:
        - Discuss and produce policy and implementation recommendations for 
ICANN in the implementation of IDN TLDs that are common between IDN ccTLDs and 
IDN gTLDs
- Scope:
        - Issues of common interest to both IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs will be 
discussed
        - Where an issue is raised and is identified by the CCNSO or the GNSO 
as not being an issue of common interest
- Short Term Objectives / Issues to be discussed:
        - Variant management at the root (variant TLD strings)
        - Length of IDN TLDs
        - IDNA Standards Revision
        - Domain Bundling across TLDs (and cost / ICANN Fees considerations)

While some of these topics are being envisioned to be discussed in a staff-led 
work team, I think it doesn't hurt to start the discussion here.


For 1. I think we also had good progress in the discussions in Sydney.  To 
recap, I think the consensus around the room in the Sydney meeting was as 
follows:
a. That any measures to address the issue must be predicated on an 
understanding that it should not cause delay to the full new gTLD process
b. And that only if it becomes apparent that the new gTLD process will be 
further delayed should such measures be implemented
c. First Option is to assert that new IDN ccTLDs and new IDN gTLDs should be 
introduced to the root at approximately the same time, even as both process 
would continue its course unaffected by the other
d. Failing the first option, other measures should be investigated, one of 
which being an IDN gTLD Fast Track
e. If an IDN gTLD Fast Track is to be implemented it must be opened well in 
advance of the anticipated closing of the full new gTLD application process
f. If an IDN gTLD Fast Track is to be implemented, sufficient outreach should 
also be conducted

Given the above, I think we can adjust the previous draft charter for 
reconsideration.

Thereupon the question remains as to what we would like to do to move this 
forward.  Seems to me that we should consider:
- request the board to form a WG specifically tasked with the objective
- formation of a GNSO WG tasked with the objective
- both of the above (with the latter starting immediately and merging into the 
former when it can be done)
- reemphasizing c. above


Looking forward to thoughts and comments. :-)

Edmon