IDNG draft motion [RE: [gnso-idng] IDNG WG Charter]
Please see attached revised draft IDNG WG charter, incorporating the suggested edits. Also below is a revised draft motion for consideration (basically, did not change the "whereas" section from previous draft, but suggesting a simple resolution to for a GNSO WG to start discussing the item): ================================================ WHEREAS: The ICANN community has been discussing issues related to IDN and IDN TLDs since 2000, and the ICANN board as early as September 2000 recognized "that it is important that the Internet evolve to be more accessible to those who do not use the ASCII character set"; There is expressed demand from the community, especially from language communities around the world who do not use English or a Latin based script as a primary language, including the CJK (Chinese Japanese Korean) communities and the right-to-left directional script communities (e.g. Arabic, Hebrew, Persian, etc.), for advancing the introduction of Internationalized Top-Level Domains (IDN TLDs); 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 community observes the successful development of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track based on the IDNC WG recommendations, and the ongoing progress for the Implementation of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process; The implementation of the New gTLD process is ongoing and the schedule and development of the implementation should continue; GNSO Council had made comments in response to the ccNSO-GAC Issues Report on IDN Issues, as well as in its comments on the IDNC WG Final Report expressed that “the introduction of IDN gTLDs or IDN ccTLDs should not be delayed because of lack of readiness of one category, but if they are not introduced at the same time, steps should be taken so that neither category is advantaged or disadvantaged, and procedures should be developed to avoid possible conflicts”; GNSO Council made a resolution in January 2009 to assert that “the GNSO Council strongly believes that neither the New gTLD or ccTLD fast track process should result in IDN TLDs in the root before the other unless both the GNSO and ccNSO so agree”; RESOLVED: The GNSO will initiate an IDN gTLD Working Group (IDNG) based on the proposed charter. ================================================ Edmon > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams > Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 11:57 PM > To: Edmon Chung > Cc: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] IDNG WG Charter > > > Of course. The gramatical non-substantive edits are fine in one thread. > Lets get the language clear, regardless of what we or anyone agrees or > disagrees as to the substantive content, and in another thread work on > the substantive issues. > > Feel free to create threads. > > Edmon Chung wrote: > > 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 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > Attachment:
IDNG WG Charter DRAFT3.1.doc
|