[council] RE: statement and response on the IDNC Interim Report

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

It seems I have not been able to send this email out to the
'gnso-idnc-initial@xxxxxxxxx' list.
Am sending to council instead.
Edmon



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edmon Chung [mailto:edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 7:05 PM
> To: 'gnso-idnc-initial@xxxxxxxxx'
> Cc: 'jonb'
> Subject: RE: statement and response on the IDNC Interim Report
> 
> I just realized that my earlier message was bounced.  I am not sure if it
was
> because I used a different account (edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx vs.
edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx)
> or it was because the mailing-list was closed down.  Anyway, am trying
again.
> Edmon
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Edmon Chung [mailto:edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 4:37 PM
> > To: 'gnso-idnc-initial@xxxxxxxxx'
> > Cc: 'jonb'
> > Subject: statement and response on the IDNC Interim Report
> >
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> > I know this is 2 weeks overdue, but would like to try to pick this up
and move
> > quickly.
> >
> > Here are the few topics I think we should focus on for a response:
> >
> > 1. Fast Track as an ongoing process
> >     - acceptable but should ensure the continued security and stability
of the
> > Internet
> >     - i.e. introduction/delegations must be predictable and not ad hoc
> >     - i.e. in rounds and not "at anytime"
> >     - rules and mechanisms must be setup prior to the first round
> >
> > 2. Meaningful String
> >     - applaud the adoption of the criteria
> >     - agree with the adherence to official language
> >     - caution the use of exceptions
> >
> > 3. Non-contentious
> >     - charter states: " The purpose of the IDNC Working Group (IDNC WG)
is to
> > develop and report on feasible methods, if any, that would enable the
> introduction,
> > in a timely manner and in a manner that ensures the continued security
and
> > stability of the Internet, of a limited number of non-contentious IDN
ccTLDs while
> > the overall policy is being developed."
> >     - suggested change of scope to: " E: The proposed string and
delegation
> > request should be noncontentious
> > within the territory" is not consistent with the charter
> >
> > 4. Objection mechanism
> >     - no discussion in the Interim report of why the
> >     - understand the sensitivities around a formal objection mechanism
> >     - informal process acceptable
> >     - without already built in a channel to facilitate the voicing of
concerns
> > would put undue pressure on ICANN board to make decision
> >
> > 5. Contractual relationship
> >     - without contractual relationship unable to bind Fast Track ccTLDs
to PDP
> >     - overarching technical and techno-policy requirements for IDN
deployment
> > (IDN Guidelines, standards, IANA table etc.)
> >     - Fast Track is different from PDP and will not set precedence nor
pre-empt
> > PDP
> >
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > I will draft a brief document over the weekend with the above (and
incorporate
> > other comments as they come in).
> >
> > Since there isn't much time before our next council call on May 8,
perhaps it is
> > best to coordinate over this mailing list.  If others feel a
teleconference would be
> > better, please suggest to this list.
> >
> > Edmon
> >
> >
> > PS. Glen, please add John Bing to the list.