RE: [council] GNSO response to IDNC Initial Report

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

My compliments Edmon on a very thorough effort.  Did you do this
yourself or were others involved?  Regardless, thanks for all the work.
I have just one initial thought and two GNSO process questions.

Regarding objection procedure on p.3 (Under D), I wonder whether an
objection procedure might still have value even in case an explicit list
is provided or instrinsically defined criteria are given.  It would be
ideal if a list or criteria covered all possible objections, but I am
not sure that is realistic considering the dyanmics of the environment.

Do you anticipate getting GNSO Council approval of this document?  What
is the deadline for comments?

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Edmon Chung
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 3:53 AM
To: 'Council GNSO'
Subject: [council] GNSO response to IDNC Initial Report


Hi Everyone,

Attached is the draft response for the IDNC Initial Report.

Much of it is adapted from previous documents and discussions,
especially from the GNSO response to the ccNSO/GAC issues paper and the
IDN WG outcomes report.

The document tries takes a suggestive tone rather than an instructive
one.

The key elements include:

1. non-contentious and associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes

2. Requirements and process appropriate for the Fast Track may not be
applicable to the longer term process.

3. Adherence to the IDN guidelines and policies to reduce the risks of
spoofing using IDN homoglyphs.

4. Fast Track IDN ccTLD strings must not be confusingly similar  to
existing TLDs

5. Appropriate and balanced participation from the ICANN community must
be maintained throughout the Fast Track process

6. ICANN should have a contract or some other form of agreement with the
Fast Track ccTLD manager that includes appropriate technical,
operational and financial requirements.

Please take a look and provide comments.

Edmon