RE: [council] FW: GNSO Comments re. IDN ccTLD Fast Track Implementation Plan

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

Sounds like a workable plan to me.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 12:26 PM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] FW: GNSO Comments re. IDN ccTLD Fast 
> Track Implementation Plan
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks Edmon for doing this and Chuck for passing it on.
> 
> I suggest the following approach to the publication of these comments:
> 
> As the deadline for submitting these comments is 7-Jan-09 and 
> our next meeting isn't until the 8th, I would like to ask for 
> a  review period ending 6 Jan 09 at 1200 UTC.  If there are 
> no objections to submitting this as a GNSO council comment 
> and there are no major edits in that time then I will submit 
> it as GNSO Council comment.
> 
> On the other hand if there are any objections or any major 
> changes, then those changes need to freeze by 6 Jan 09 1200 
> UTC and a 24 hour approval period ending 7-Jan-09 1200 UTC 
> will be initiated.
> 
> If there are no objections at that point, I will submit it as 
> the GNSO Council comment.  If there are still objections, 
> then it can be submitted as an independent statement listing 
> those who sign on to it, but it would not be submitted as a 
> Council position.
> 
> thanks
> a.
> 
> 
> On 2 Jan 2009, at 18:34, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > I am forwarding this for Edmon.
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> > From: Edmon Chung [mailto:edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 6:23 PM
> > To: Gomes, Chuck
> > Cc: 'Avri Doria'; 'Glen de Saint Géry'
> > Subject: RE: GNSO Comments re. IDN ccTLD Fast Track Implementation 
> > Plan
> >
> > Seems like the email I tried to send to the council list 
> did not get 
> > sent... (see attached) wonder if you got it earlier...
> > I will try to send again... in case it doesnt get through 
> please help 
> > me post to the list.
> > Edmon
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Edmon Chung [mailto:edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 11:26 AM
> > To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Edmon Chung'
> > Cc: 'Avri Doria'; 'Glen de Saint Géry'
> > Subject: RE: GNSO Comments re. IDN ccTLD Fast Track Implementation 
> > Plan
> >
> > Sorry for the delays.  Will have a draft out today.
> > Edmon
> >
> >
> > From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 1, 2009 3:42 AM
> > To: Edmon Chung
> > Cc: Avri Doria; Glen de Saint Géry
> > Subject: GNSO Comments re. IDN ccTLD Fast Track Implementation Plan
> > Importance: High
> >
> > Edmon,
> >
> > We are just a little over a week before our 8 Jan Council 
> meeting and 
> > I don't think we have seen anything from you regarding a 
> possible GNSO 
> > statement regarding the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Implementation 
> Plan.  We 
> > really need that as soon as possible so that we can discuss on list 
> > prior to the meeting and act on it in the meeting.  Also, 
> the comment 
> > period ends on 9 Jan.
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> > From: "Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: 2 January 2009 00:35:26 EST
> > To: <gnso-idnc-initial@xxxxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO" 
> > <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > 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! :-)
> >
> >
> > <GNSO-Comments-FastTrackImplementationPlan.doc>
> >
> 
> 
>