RE: [council] IDN gTLD Fast Track discussion

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Stéphane,

I think that is a good point.  However, I think it makes most sense to
follow closely the path that has already been blazed through by the ccNSO,
and that focusing on IDN gTLDs would get us further quicker.  I do not
disagree with also starting work on other "categories" (parenthesis
important because I think IDN should not be "categorized" as such... i.e.
there are "categories" of IDN gTLDs as well).  However, I think if we have
one focused WG we can achieve the results in a quick schedule.  And
personally, I think the work that has already been done for IDN ccTLDs can
be largely reused to benefit an IDN gTLD fast track.

Also, we already have a comprehensive body of documentation on IDN,
especially based on the policy development work already done for the new
gTLD process on the subject (especially in the IDN WG and actually in other
parts of the new gTLD final report).  If a "category" of gTLD is to be
separately furthered, such specific policy development may (or may not) need
to be discussed as a policy development matter (whereas there is no further
policy development required for IDN essentially, all could be contained
within implementation matters).

As a separate project, I am happy to contribute to a process (which may look
different from the "fast track") to look into possibly moving some
"categories" of new gTLDs forward as well, however, I feel that is a much
different conversation.  Lumping them together would, I believe, confuse the
matter and be disadvantageous for both directive.

Edmon




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:59 PM
> To: Edmon Chung; 'Council GNSO'
> Subject: Re: [council] IDN gTLD Fast Track discussion
> 
> Edmon,
> 
> Would it not be difficult to argue for an IDN gTLD fast track if no such
> mechanism is also planned for other non-contentious subcategories of new
> TLDs?
> 
> There was a lot of discussion on the possibility of increasing the number
of
> TLD categories in Mexico and my feeling was that staff wasn't in favour. I
> could be wrong of course...
> 
> I actually think it makes a lot of sense to allow non-contentious TLDs a
way
> forward before the mainstream new TLD launch, if it means TLDs that
present
> more complicated issues get ironed out properly while at the same time not
> delaying the others.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stéphane Van Gelder
> 
> 
> Le 19/03/09 12:17, « Edmon Chung » <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> 
> >
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> > Following up on the discussion we had during our wrap up meeting in
Mexico,
> > would like to share some thoughts on a possible IDN gTLD Fast Track
concept.
> > From the discussion at that meeting as well as conversations during and
after
> > Mexico, it seems like there are a few items that could form a starting
point
> > for constructive discussion towards a possible IDN gTLD Fast Track:
> >
> > 1. The New gTLD schedule should not be delayed by an IDN gTLD Fast Track
> > 2. The IDN ccTLD Fast Track schedule should not be delayed by an IDN
gTLD
> Fast
> > Track
> > 3. An IDN gTLD Fast Track should be viewed as a backup plan should the
New
> > gTLD schedule be further delayed
> > 4. Work on an IDN gTLD Fast Track should begin in preparation for the
case
> > that the New gTLD schedule is further delayed
> > 5. The IDN gTLD Fast Track, if implemented, should:
> >             - follow closely the process of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track
> >             - aim to introduce "a limited number of non-contentious" IDN
gTLDs
> >             - be based on the GNSO New gTLD Final Report, including the
IDN WG
> > outcomes report
> > (i.e. should not require additional policy development)
> >             - encourage stronger protection of rights of others
> >
> > I think we would be allocating some time to discuss the issue in our
upcoming
> > conference call meeting.  Would love to get some feedback and thoughts
on the
> > above items before our meeting.
> >
> > Wondering what people think about the above points...
> >
> > Edmon
> >
> >
> >
> >