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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Edmon.  This looks good to me.  I have two minor edits to suggest
for the added section at the end: 1) change the title to something like
"Draft Timeline for Initial Tasks"; 2) change "October 2009 - Publish
finalized first report" to something like "October 2009 - Finalize and
publish initial report".

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung
> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 11:16 PM
> 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
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
>