RE: [gnso-idng] Recap of Sydney discussions

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Response below
Edmon

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2009 9:44 PM
> To: Edmon Chung; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] Recap of Sydney discussions
> 
> 
> Thanks Edmon.  Please see a few comments and questions below.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 4:54 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
> 
> Chuck: I don't understand the second item under scope above.  Is it
> misstated or is there something missing?

Sorry, it should say
Where an issue is raised and is identified by the CCNSO or the GNSO as not
being an issue of common interest, the issue will be considered out of
scope.

> 
> > - 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)
> 
> Chuck: Is bundling an issue that ccTLD operators will be interested in?
> If not, then should it be included here as an issue of common interest?
> I do agree that it is of interest to us in the gTLD world so I am not
> suggesting it should not be addressed, just maybe not by this group.
> 

Possible.  But given that ICANN is suggesting fees (though not mandatory)
for ccTLDs, there has been some concern about how these fees would work if
bundling is applied.  We can leave it out for now and add as we go I think.

> >
> > 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
> 
> Chuck:  I suggest we move forward before even sending any request to the
> Board.  It is probably just as easy for the Board to consider some
> recommendations we might put forward as it is to consider whether to
> form a WG and later consider any recommendations that might come out of
> a WG and it is certainly faster.  Regardless, finalizing a charter seems
> like the next step.

OK.



> 
> > - 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >