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

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In response to Eric,

I do not think it assumes that some of the issues are "resolved"... in
contrary, I think some of the issues involve elements of implementation of
policies, which is what the JIG proposes to try to tackle.  These issues are
of common interest between IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs, which is why the
concept of having a joint working group.

Edmon


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Brunner-Williams [mailto:ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> 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.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Edmon Chung
> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 11:16 AM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] Joint IDN WG (JIG)
> 
> Attached is an updated draft, incorporating edits suggested and a target
> schedule of work.
> Edmon
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On
> > Behalf Of Edmon Chung
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 11:46 PM
> > To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] Joint IDN WG (JIG)
> >
> >
> > Ok.  I think that should be a good idea.
> > Edmon
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 9:49 PM
> > > To: Edmon Chung; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] Joint IDN WG (JIG)
> > >
> > > I think that can work Edmon but it seems like we should at least
> > > provide some estimates for the identified tasks.  In doing so we
> > > could also state specifically that the group would be ongoing as
> > > needed to address any new issues that may be identified.  If we want
> > > a report produced before the meetings in Seoul we should say that
> > > and provide a high-level plan for accomplishing that.
> > >
> > > Chuck
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung
> > > > Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 10:26 PM
> > > > To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] Joint IDN WG (JIG)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >