Re: [gnso-idng] IDNG WG Charter

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Edmon

In 1. Purpose, first sentence, there appears to be a typo. The text 
reads "... between the introduction of new IDN ccTLDs and new IDN ccTLDs 
..."
I suspect that one of those "cc" instances should be something other 
than "cc".

In the same (long) sentence there is "... methods ..." and "... is 
...".  Methods are, and method is. I suggest that the "is" become an "are".

I don't want to spend too much time on nits. My own approach to writing 
"we have to agree to something we don't yet have a complete description 
of" at CORE is to start with short message statements, and always in the 
active voice ("i saw it", rather than the passive voice "it was seen").

The purpose of the prior IDN work (GNSO or Board initiated) was, for 
want of a better word (and I'm not looking it up on either the GNSO or 
ICANN sites to be certain, and the RC chose Yoav, not I, for the last 
GNSO initiated activity, and I work on the issues mostly at the IETF, so 
all errors, facutal and imaginary here are mine) focused on character 
set issues. The purpose of this IDN work assumes character set issues 
are resolved, and that other issues, such as coordination of variants 
table instances, coordination of registration policies, and coordination 
of registration availabilities, the interesting consequence of two or 
more IDN entries added to the root, are sufficiently useful to the CCNSO 
and the GNSO to constitute an ad-hoc, or formalized, working group.

I'll continue this later today.

Eric


Edmon Chung wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> This is a separate thread from the JIG (Joint IDN Group) as described in the 
> Sydney recap sent earlier.
>
> Attached please find a largely readjusted IDNG WG charter, with the following 
> key changes:
> 1. That the purpose be to identify feasible mechanisms to minimize the 
> disparity of the timing between the introduction of new IDN ccTLDs and new IDN 
> gTLDs into the root
> 2. One of the possibilities being an IDN gTLD Fast Track
> 3. Adding that IF an IDN gTLD Fast Track would be considered, that outreach 
> efforts be included, that it should be considered only if the new gTLD process 
> is to be further delayed, and that it should be implemented only if there would 
> be a significant time difference between the IDN gTLD Fast Track and the full 
> New gTLD process.
> 4. That the WG be a GNSO WG to begin with and would seek council's request to 
> the ICANN board only if the WG later believes it is required.
>
> Looking forward to comments and thoughts.
>
> Edmon
>
>
>
>