RE: [council] RE: IDN ccTLD Fast Track implementation plan council comments

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

Thanks Edmon.  That makes more sense to me now.  I was looking at it
strictly from a GNSO perspective and didn't look back at the
implementation plan.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: Edmon Chung [mailto:edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 9:34 PM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Council GNSO'
        Subject: RE: [council] RE: IDN ccTLD Fast Track implementation
plan council comments
        
        

        1. The headings were taken directly from the Draft
Implementation Plan, see
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/idn-cctld-implementation-p
lan-26nov08-en.pdf (page 26)

         

        2. Similarly, that was taken from the Draft Implementation Plan
(as above), Module 7, Discussion of Additional Topics: " This Module 7
contains a description of issues and topics that are relevant parts of
the Draft Implementation Plan, but were not (fully) covered in the IDNC
Final Report. It also includes the list of outstanding issues which the
ICANN Board directed staff to produce in advance of the ICANN Cairo
meeting in November 2008."

         

        The intent of including all of the topics was to make a point
that some of these "Additional Topics" may/should require further
discussion by the community because it could potentially have broader
impact and was not already covered by the IDNC.

         

        Also, just because it is restricted to a meaningful
representation of a country name, it does not I think automatically mean
that it will never conflict with a potential/existing gTLD string OR a
then existing ccTLD.

         

        Edmon

         

         

         

        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
        Sent: Saturday, January 3, 2009 8:01 AM
        To: Edmon Chung; Council GNSO
        Subject: [council] RE: IDN ccTLD Fast Track implementation plan
council comments

         

        Edmon,

         

        Good job.  I have just two comments:

        1.      It seems to me that "Compliance with consensus
policies." is not a very good heading for item 4, dealing with security
& stability.  Would this be better: "Ensuring security and stability'? 
        2.      Is item 5 really a concern in the fast tract if the IDN
ccTLD fast track names are restricted to country names as defined  by
the IDNC?  It seems to me that it might not be. 

        Chuck

                 

                
________________________________


                From: Edmon Chung [mailto:edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
                Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 12:35 AM
                To: gnso-idnc-initial@xxxxxxxxx; 'Council GNSO'
                Subject: IDN ccTLD Fast Track implementation plan
council comments

                Hi Everyone, 

                Apologies for the delay on this matter, please find
attached the draft for the council comments on the Draft IDN ccTLD Fast
Track implementation plan.

                The document is mainly separated into 2 parts: 
                (A) response on Module 7, where 5 open questions were
raised 
                (B) reemphasizing some of the issues raised previously 

                 

                For (A) the 5 open questions listed in Module 7 were: 
                1. Ensuring ongoing compliance with the IDN technical
standards, including the IDNA protocol and the IDN Guidelines. 
                2. Possible establishment of financial contributions. 
                3. IDN ccTLD operator association to the ICANN
community. 
                4. Compliance with consensus policies 
                5. Prevention of contention issues with existing TLDs
and those under application in the gTLD process. 

                The draft mainly extracted statements from previous
documents to respond to the topics, but have also emphasized that we may
require much broader input from the community on the issues because they
are largely new considerations not specifically discussed previously.
In particular, 3 & 4, and some respects 2 & 5.

                 

                For (B) 3 items were specifically reemphasized: 
                1. Lack of structure for implementation in the situation
where a proposed Fast Track IDN ccTLD string is not listed in the UNGEGN
manual (i.e. not in a particular authoritative list)

                2. Lack of clarity in the process for linguistic process
check and confirmation of a requested string 
                3. Lack of consideration for avoiding confusingly
similar strings 

                 

                Comments/thoughts welcome. 

                Since, the deadline for comments to the draft
implementation plan is Jan 9, in view of time, perhaps we can have a
discussion on the council list and on our meeting on Jan 8 to finalize
our response.

                Edmon 

                 

                PS. Happy New Year! :-)