-----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