RE: [council] GNSO response to IDNC Initial Report

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I see.  However, the comment already stipulates that "and such list is 
accepted by the ICANN community".  In that case, a process for which to 
solicit public input to the compilation of the list is already implicit.  Is 
it then necessary to also have an objection process just for the string?  I 
would think if a list is compiled and agreed upon, there is no further need 
for an open objection mechanism.  Not unlike the current ASCII ccTLD 
situation.

Edmon



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 8:40 AM
> To: Edmon Chung; Council GNSO
> Subject: RE: [council] GNSO response to IDNC Initial Report
>
> Thanks Edmon.  Now I see the changes.  Note that I wasn't necessarily
> suggesting that in the case of a list that an objection process should
> be established just to challenge the selection of the operator; that may
> or may not be okay, but I was also thinking about a challenge process
> for the selection of the string as well.
>
> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung
> > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 6:54 PM
> > To: 'Council GNSO'
> > Subject: RE: [council] GNSO response to IDNC Initial Report
> >
> >
> > Sorry, I had forwarded the wrong version.  Attached Again.
> > The update was supposed to be as per your suggestion to have
> > an objection mechanism regardless of whether a mandated list
> > is being used.
> > Changes in B(ii) and D(i).
> > Edmon
> >
> >
> > PS. I don't know what it is that my outlook is doing, but it
> > seems like
> > attachments I am sending cannot be parsed by some email
> > clients, especially
> > web-based ones.  If you do not see the attachment, please let
> > me know and I
> > will send to you via other means. :-(
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 7:21 AM
> > > To: Edmon Chung; Council GNSO
> > > Subject: RE: [council] GNSO response to IDNC Initial Report
> > >
> > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >