RE: [council] GNSO response to IDNC Initial Report

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

Thanks Edmon.  Very helpful but it is not clear to me what changes you
made in the draft.  Maybe I just didn't read it carefully.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung
> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 9:17 PM
> To: 'Council GNSO'
> Subject: RE: [council] GNSO response to IDNC Initial Report
> 
> 
> A mailing-list was created with the following subscribed on the list:
> Edmon Chung
> Avri Doria
> Olga Cavalli
> Charles Sha'ban
> Cary Karp
> Olof Nordling
> Tina Dam
> Liz Gasster
> 
> We had one conference call, and the current draft includes 
> comments collected during that session along with some 
> additional correspondence I had with Cary on the first question.
> 
> I would admit that much of the drafting was done by myself.
> 
> In terms of process, the IDNC is generally flexible and 
> welcomes the input by the GNSO.  The supposed deadline was 
> last Tuesday, but we have been asked to provide input asap.
> 
> I think it should be good if we could have a resolution on it 
> in the upcoming meeting on the 6th.
> 
> Regarding objection procedure, I had incorporated the 
> language from the GNSO response to the ccNSO/GAC issues 
> paper.  Given the context I agree with your suggestion.  
> Please find attached an updated draft.
> 
> Edmon
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 10:35 PM
> > To: Edmon Chung; Council GNSO
> > Subject: RE: [council] GNSO response to IDNC Initial Report
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
>