RE: [council] GNSO response to IDNC Initial Report

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

Good point Edmon.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 8:05 PM
> To: 'Council GNSO'
> Subject: RE: [council] GNSO response to IDNC Initial Report
> 
> 
> 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
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> 
> 
>