RE: [gnso-idng] Joint IDN WG (JIG)

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for the edits.

Regarding timeline, the reason for not including one is that the current
concept is to have an ongoing group rather than one-off... It is anticipated
that there may be other issues that could arise.  I wonder if that might
work better?...  The understanding though is to set a timeline to put out a
report on the few identified issues in time before Seoul.

Edmon



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 2:00 AM
> To: Edmon Chung; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] Joint IDN WG (JIG)
> 
> Thanks Edmon.  I made some suggested edits that are highlighted in the
attached
> file.  Note that I avoided the use of the word 'policy' because both SO's
have
> policy development processes that are different than this proposed
approach.
> Also, I suggested at the end that the charter should contain a
timeline/project plan.
> 
> Because this is a joint WG, both SO's should probably approve the charter.
A
> first step would be to make sure that ccNSO reps review and comment on the
> draft charter.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung
> > Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 5:20 AM
> > To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [gnso-idng] Joint IDN WG (JIG)
> >
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> > After some further discussion with Jane of CCNSO, please find attached
> > a draft of the charter for the JIG.
> >
> > As mentioned earlier, the purpose would be to discuss and provide
> > implementation and policy recommendations to ICANN regarding issues of
> > common interest between IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs.
> >
> > 2 particular conceptual features of the JIG would be:
> > 1. that if either SO feel that an issue is out of scope its unilateral
> > understanding would put the issue out of scope for the JIG 2. that it
> > is ongoing and will produce recommendations for each SO's council to
> > consider from time to time
> >
> > And of course, as mentioned earlier as well, we will start with the
> > following:
> > - IDN TLD length
> > - Variant management for TLD strings
> > - IDN Language table implementation at the root
> >
> > Thoughts and comments welcome...
> >
> > If we feel that this looks right, would also like to prepare a
> > resolution for the council to vote on at our upcoming meeting (Jane
> > will be doing the same at the CCNSO).
> >
> > Edmon
> >
> >
> >