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

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

Eric,

It is Kato as you probably know, not Katho, as in Masanobu Kato, former ICANN 
director from Japan.  The recommendations from the group he chaired definitely 
was slanted toward ccTLDs because it was dominated by ccTLD interests.

BTW, Kato was at the IGF in Egypt last week.  It was good seeing him again.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Brunner-Williams [mailto:ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 12:37 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder; Edmon Chung; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Process forward [RE: [gnso-idng] restarting 
> discussions on IDN gTLD]
> 
> 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-fin
> al-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
> >>>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>