Draft Motion and Charter [RE: [gnso-idng] Joint IDN WG (JIG)]
See attached revised charter Draft3, with the following changes: - incorporated suggestions by Chuck - added feedback from ccNSO to add emphasis that ongoing implementation work should not wait for reports from the JIG - added that ICANN should provide some staff support to the JIG Here also is a draft of the motion which I hope to put forward in the coming council meeting: =============================================== WHEREAS GNSO IDN WG successfully completed its outcomes report in March 2007 and the GNSO Council approved the incorporation of its findings in the GNSO Final Report on the Introduction of New gTLDs in September 2007, describing policy requirements for the introduction of IDN gTLDs; The Board Proposal from the IDNC WG was completed in June 2008, describing the IDN ccTLD Fast Track methodology; Both the drafts and excerpts for the Applicant Guidebook for the New gTLD process, and the drafts for the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Implementation Plan had included implementation considerations for IDN TLDs; and, Issues of common interest between new IDN ccTLDs and new IDN gTLDs can be identified, including issues where implementation of IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs should be consistent (e.g. IDN Language Table implementation at the root zone), and where implementation of IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs are inter-related (e.g. 2-Character length TLDs as a reservation for ccTLDs); RESOLVED: To create together with the ccNSO a Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) be formed based on the Draft Charter. =============================================== Edmon > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck > Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 9:34 AM > To: Edmon Chung; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] Joint IDN WG (JIG) > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Attachment:
JIG-charter-DRAFT3.docx
|