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

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> Here are a couple key GNSO position statements that are pertinent:
>  
> * IDN-labeled TLDs (whether considered gTLDs or TLDs associated with countries
> territories) should be introduced as soon as practicable after technical 
> requirements and
> tests are successfully completed.

IETF IDNAbis hat=="on", I wouldn't yet say that we're at "after", but 
it is a consensus position, and the consensus is that we're close to 
or in the middle of "after".


> * The introduction of IDN-labeled gTLDs or 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.

Yoav submitted a comment yesterday, here's the link:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/3gtld-evaluation/msg00006.html

In it, he observed:
"The first ICANN IDN committee - the Katho IDN committee, concluded
against automatically delegating IDN TLDs equivalent to current gTLDs 
to the incumbent registries."

This may be water over the bridge as Stewart Lynn was President and 
CEO when ICANN met at Rio, though John Jeffrey was General Counsel (2003).
http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/riodejaneiro/idn-topic.htm

I don't actually find the conclusion that Yoav points out, which if 
still in effect, would preclude the approaches I suggested yesterday.

Chuck, if you can dig up what the constraints are, and what is 
obsoleted, or ask Glen, it might be helpful.
Eric

> These were taken from the "GNSO Council Comments on IDNC WG Final Report" 
> located at 
> http://gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/drafts/gnso-comments-idnc-final-report-31jul08.pdf.  The 
> same positions were later reiterated by the GNSO in subsequent Council approved 
> statements.
>
> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Eric Brunner-Williams [mailto:ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> > Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 10:40 AM
> > To: Gomes, Chuck
> > Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder; Edmon Chung; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: Process forward [RE: [gnso-idng] restarting 
> > discussions on IDN gTLD]
> > Thanks Chuck, it was my recollection that the GNSO did not 
> > take the position that the ccNSO should be prevented from 
> > offering IDN until the GNSO was allowed to offer additional 
> > ASCII inventories, only that the cc and g IDN inventory 
> > offerings should be within a curable duration from each other.
> > Eric
> >
> > Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > > Two clarifications: 1) It is a GNSO as a whole position, 
> > not just the 
> > > RySG, that neither IDN ccTLDs or IDN gTLDs should proceed 
> > the other; 
> > > 2) there was no exception of the IDN ccTLD fast track.  The 
> > position 
> > > went on to say, if one did proceed before the other, that 
> > arrangements 
> > > should be made to minimize possible problems. (Note I am 
> > not quoting 
> > > exact wording.)
> > >
> > > Chuck