[council] RE: statement and response on the IDNC Interim Report
Hi Everyone, Not sure if the previous file/email did get through to everyone. But anyway, here is a slightly updated version based on the newly published draft from the IDNC (http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-13jun08-en.htm / http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/idn-cctld-fast-track-draft-final-report -recommendations-13jun08.pdf). Edmon > -----Original Message----- > From: Edmon Chung [mailto:edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 12:11 AM > To: 'gnso-idnc-initial@xxxxxxxxx' > Cc: 'GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'Avri Doria' > Subject: RE: statement and response on the IDNC Interim Report > > Sending this again, as it seems the previous one didn't go through. > Edmon > > PS. Glen/Avri, in case this doesn't go through to the list, could you let me know. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Edmon Chung [mailto:edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 3:50 PM > To: 'gnso-idnc-initial@xxxxxxxxx' > Subject: RE: [council] RE: statement and response on the IDNC Interim Report > > Hi Everyone, > > This is long over due... anyway, please find a brief document I have drafted as > mentioned previously. > > Comments welcome. Since we will be having a council meeting later this week, > perhaps it is best we decide how to move forward on this after that. But meanwhile > please provide your thoughts. > > Edmon > > > PS. Glen/Avri, is it appropriate to post this to the GNSO wiki, and how do I do that? > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung > > Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 7:10 PM > > To: 'Council GNSO' > > Cc: gnso-idnc-initial@xxxxxxxxx > > Subject: [council] RE: statement and response on the IDNC Interim > > Report > > > > > > 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. Attachment:
GNSO-Council-Comments-IDNCDraftFinalReport.doc |