Re: Process forward [RE: [gnso-idng] restarting discussions on IDN gTLD]

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

Sounds like a good idea.  

Chuck


----- Original Message -----
From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx>
To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sat Nov 21 03:39:22 2009
Subject: Process forward [RE: [gnso-idng] restarting discussions on IDN gTLD]


I think it might be best to hear more thoughts from this group first.
Perhaps I can bring it up as AOB on Monday and try to solicit some feedback
as well as encourage more participation here.

Thereupon, and if we have some agreement to proceed, I think an
implementation team (involving more participation from ACs) can be convened
to propose a possible solution implementable by staff.

What do you think?

Edmon




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2009 8:44 AM
> To: Edmon Chung; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] restarting discussions on IDN gTLD
> 
> Edmon,
> 
> How do you plan to proceed with this?  It is very late to add it to the
> agenda for Monday, 23 Nov, but you could possibly bring it up under AOB.
> If you decide to do that, it would be helpful to have an approach in
> mind that the Council could at least comment on.
> 
> In your option 2 below, I don't understand  "- if it is determined to be
> confusingly similar, then the application stands; if it is determined to
> be NOT confusingly similar, then the application is punted to 1. above
> or the full new gTLD process"
> 
> Chuck
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung
> > Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 10:31 PM
> > To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [gnso-idng] restarting discussions on IDN gTLD
> >
> >
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> > As mentioned in the wrap up session in Seoul, would like to
> > restart this conversation.
> >
> > I think it has now become somewhat apparent that the full new
> > gTLD process will be delayed for a while and that there will
> > be a good gap between when we will see IDN ccTLDs and when we
> > might see IDN gTLDs (especially if we do not do something
> > about it).  Furthermore, there has been growing discussion /
> > interest in having separate "tracks" for certain
> > "categories".  So it seems to me that the time for this
> > discussion for IDN gTLDs is becoming mature...
> >
> > Anyway, the basic situation, based on my observation, perhaps
> > could be described as follows:
> > - there is definite interest in having IDN gTLDs as soon as possible
> > - there is user expectation (among other reasons) that as IDN
> > ccTLDs are available IDN gTLDs also work
> > - IDN gTLDs, like IDN ccTLDs are new TLDs, as new gTLDs, the
> > same overarching issues (not resolved for the full process) may apply
> > - Full IDN experience (i.e. including the TLD) is important
> > for users and the adoption of IDN
> > - IDN TLD is an important undertaking for ICANN in promoting
> > multilingualism and IDN gTLDs should be one of the priorities
> > of ICANN work
> > - From the press coverage received (and the great enthusiasm
> > and discussions at the IGF) regarding the release of IDN
> > ccTLDs, there is public demand (or at least interest) on
> > having IDN TLDs
> >
> > Based on the above, I can think of 2 possible options or tracks:
> >
> > 1. to break out the discussion focused on IDN gTLDs and
> > address the overarching issues specifically for the
> > introduction of IDN gTLDs
> > - open the application process for all IDN gTLD strings
> > - identify the relevant issues and propose a solution focused
> > on IDN gTLDs
> > - work in parallel with the full new gTLD process (or other
> > tracks for that matter) and bring about a process independent
> > of the full new gTLD process discussion (i.e. may happen to
> > be completed sooner than, at the same time, or later than the
> > full new gTLD process)
> >
> > 2. to have a special track for IDN gTLDs that would "mirror"
> > existing gTLDs
> > - existing gTLDs will apply and commit to essentially run the
> > same zonefile (or offer the same name for registration to the
> > existing registrant) as the IDN gTLD, providing full IDN
> > experience for gTLDs
> > - existing gTLDs will have to apply through a process and be
> > subjected to objections
> > - objections can be raised by potential applicants for the
> > same name (or a similar name forming a contention set with
> > the applied for IDN gTLD)
> > - where objection arise, the IDN gTLD string will be
> > submitted for evaluation on whether it is confusingly similar
> > to the existing ASCII gTLD
> > - if it is determined to be confusingly similar, then the
> > application stands; if it is determined to be NOT confusingly
> > similar, then the application is punted to 1. above or the
> > full new gTLD process
> > - IDN gTLDs can be added to existing gTLD contracts
> >
> > The 2 options need not be mutually exclusive.  In fact,
> > Option 2 may actually be good as an ongoing process (after
> > the new round of gTLDs and as they become interested in
> > augmenting their ASCII gTLD with an accompanying IDN gTLD,
> > and as new languages are added for any gTLD for that matter).
> >
> > These are probably not the only options, but just want to get
> > this discussion started again :-)... and of course there is
> > option 3 which is do nothing for IDN gTLDs.
> >
> > Looking forward to your thoughts.
> >
> > Edmon
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >