RE: [gnso-idng] IDNG WG Charter

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Apologies about the grammatical mistakes and typos. I will have to blame the 
fact that the draft has been adapted a few times... :-P
Your observations are correct.  One of the "cc" should be "g" 
Edmon


PS. Will move your comments regarding the JIG to the other thread to avoid 
confusion... hope that is ok with you.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Brunner-Williams [mailto:ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 9:55 PM
> To: Edmon Chung
> Cc: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] IDNG WG Charter
> 
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >