RE: [council] Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG)
Attached updated draft charter based on feedback received. (changes underlined) Basically 1 change only: in the Membership section, changed from: "Council will appoint 5 members to the WG in accordance with its own rules and procedures" to "Council will appoint no more than 5 members to the WG in accordance with its own rules and procedures" Edmon > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Edmon Chung > Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 6:03 PM > To: 'Council GNSO' > Subject: RE: [council] Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) > > After a more thorough meeting of the drafting team at the ccNSO, please find > attached an updated draft of the charter for consideration (version 4). > > There are quite a bit of edits however the core concept is not changed and in fact > provides probably a more clear directive for the JIG. The changes > include: > - First paragraph in the purpose section edited to be more directly describing the > emergence of the group > - In the scope section the forgoing of the description of what constitutes an issue > of common interest, but rather depend on the examples. Also, added description > to handle out of scope issues. > - Added a section "Omission in or unreasonable impact of Charter" to provide a > bit more flexibility for the WG to conduct its work > - Added a section "Closure of the Working Group" to be closed when either the > new gTLD process or the IDN ccTLD Fast Track is implemented (extendable by > mutual agreement) > - Removed the "Draft Timeline for Initial Tasks" section. This is to avoid undue > pressure on the JIG and to provide a better environment for successful > cooperation in the group between the ccNSO and GNSO > > The one change of substance is the introduction of some parity in representation > between the GNSO and the ccNSO on the JIG. The previous draft made no > limitations, this version specifies that there be: > - 5 members each from the GNSO and ccNSO respectively > - Plus the chair of each council (or an alternate appointed by the chair) > > The main motivation for the limitation is to have some parity in representation, > whereas the number 5 is selected because the ccNSO had had good success in > using that for representing the 5 regions (the 5 members from the GNSO does not > have to be from the 5 regions). > > I think this is a reasonable approach and compromise, although I am aware of the > limitation and its effects. > > Overall, I think the edits are constructive and provides a good foundation for > successful work. I am enthusiastic about the opportunity for the ccNSO and > GNSO to work together collaboratively. :-) > > Looking forward to people's thoughts and comments. > > Edmon > > > PS. Do not think there needs to be any change in the Proposed Motion, except a > typo for the Resolved part: > RESOLVED: > To initiate together with the ccNSO a Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group > (JIG) based on the Draft Charter. > ((deleting "be formed" before "based on")) > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > On > > Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck > > Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:31 PM > > To: Edmon Chung; Council GNSO > > Subject: RE: [council] Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) > > > > > > I will second this motion. > > > > Chuck > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung > > > Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:22 AM > > > To: 'Council GNSO' > > > Subject: [council] Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) > > > > > > Hi Everyone, > > > > > > This is following up on one of the items brought up during our > > > meeting in Sydney, including at the ccNSO-GNSO lunch and > > > subsequently at our council meeting. That is the possibility of > > > creating a Joint Working Group between the ccNSO and the GNSO to > > > discuss issues of common interest regarding IDN TLDs. > > > > > > Myself and Zhang Jian of ccNSO have been corresponding thereupon on > > > drafting a charter for this Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group > > > (JIG). See attached the proposed Draft Charter for the group. The > > > draft was also circulated to the IDNG Drafting Team and the ccNSO > > > and feedback incorporated. > > > > > > The key aspects of the charter include: > > > - Purpose: identify and report on areas of common interest among the > > > ccNSO and the GNSO for IDN TLDs > > > - Scope: issues where implementation for IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs > > > should be consistent OR issues where there is inter-relation between > > > implementation of IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs > > > - Issues are considered to be out of scope if either the ccNSO or > > > the GNSO believes it is not an issue of common interest > > > - The implementation schedule for the ongoing New gTLD process and > > > the IDN ccTLD Fast Track should not be delayed or wait for the > > > report from the JIG > > > - Target to produce a final report for the initial tasks before > > > Seoul meeting > > > > > > Based on the discussions in Sydney, there seems to be support for > > > creating a joint working group, and the charter is an attempt to > > > create a mutually agreeable framework. > > > > > > Below is a draft motion for the formation of the JIG: > > > > > > =============================================== > > > > > > WHEREAS > > > > > > GNSO IDN WG successfully completed its outcomes report in March 2007 > > > and the GNSO Council approved the incorporation of its findings in > > > the GNSO Final Report on the Introduction of New gTLDs in September > > > 2007, describing policy requirements for the introduction of IDN > > > gTLDs; > > > > > > The Board Proposal from the IDNC WG was completed in June 2008, > > > describing the IDN ccTLD Fast Track methodology; > > > > > > Both the drafts and excerpts for the Applicant Guidebook for the New > > > gTLD process, and the drafts for the IDN ccTLD Fast Track > > > Implementation Plan had included implementation considerations for > > > IDN TLDs; and, > > > > > > Issues of common interest between new IDN ccTLDs and new IDN gTLDs > > > can be identified, including issues where implementation of IDN > > > ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs should be consistent (e.g. IDN Language Table > > > implementation at the root zone), and where implementation of IDN > > > ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs are inter-related (e.g. 2-Character length TLDs > > > as a reservation for ccTLDs); > > > > > > RESOLVED: > > > > > > To initiate together with the ccNSO a Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working > > > Group (JIG) be formed based on the Draft Charter. > > > > > > =============================================== > > > > > > Comments and thoughts welcome, hopefully we can get this Joint WG > > > together with the ccNSO. Think it would be a meaningful development > > > for ICANN also. > > > > > > Edmon > > > > > > > > > Attachment:
JIG-charter-DRAFT4.1.doc
|