RE: [council] Re: Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG)

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Rafik,

As much as I love being told I am “incoherent”, I have to admit I don’t 
understand your response.  Literally, I have no idea what you are trying to say.

I think you are trying to tie the JIG to the JAS comments, but I was not doing 
that.  If you recall during the Council meeting, I wanted to remove the words 
“forward to the Board” from the resolution in this case, because the ccNSO had 
not yet had a chance to weigh in on it.  I was afraid that they may not agree 
with everything and if they did not, then we would have to work things out with 
the ccNSO to ensure consistency. Once we had a report that we could both 
support, only then should we forward to the Board.  To do otherwise would be 
for the GNSO to forward 1 version of the report, the ccNSO would forward 
another version, and somehow we would expect the Board to resolve the 
differences.   To me, that seems unworkable and contrary to bottom-up policy 
making.

Again, this comment has nothing to do with the JAS working group at the moment.


Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
Please note new address starting March 21, 2011:  21575 Ridgetop Circle, 
Sterling VA 20166

________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.


From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 1:48 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Re: Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG)

Dear Jeff,

I think that you are defending  an incoherent position as you are linking the 
action of GNSO council to action of another SO/AC and waiting for it in 
contradiction to your defense and advocacy of "GNSO authority"(sic) and then 
ending with "an abdication of our responsibilities".
SO waiting for each other  to take actions is a deadlock except if you want 
that outcome which  don't think.

Regards

Rafik

2011/4/14 Neuman, Jeff <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Thanks Stephane.  FYI, this is why I spent so much time on the Council call 
trying to get the words “forward to the Board” removed from the motion.  As I 
stated during the GNSO Council call last week, one SO to a Cross-SO group 
should never send a report to the Board without hearing from the other SO.

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
Please note new address starting March 21, 2011:  21575 Ridgetop Circle, 
Sterling VA 20166

________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.


From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>] On 
Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 1:22 PM
To: Lesley Cowley
Cc: Gabriella Schittek; Glen de Saint Géry; Bart Boswinkel; 
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> GNSO
Subject: [council] Re: Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG)

Thanks Lesley,

I am copying the Council on this email in order to pass your message on. Do you 
have any idea of the timeframe for you to get the desired clarification from 
JIG and SSAC?

Stéphane



Le 13 avr. 2011 à 12:38, Lesley Cowley a écrit :

Hi Stéphane,

I am advised that Patrick Fallstrom has raised some concerns with some of the 
language in the JIG Final Report, as member of the SSAC sub-group.

In the circumstances, the ccNSO will ask for clarification from JIG and SSAC, 
before it takes any formal position/adopts the final report – would you be able 
to hold off the passing the report to the ICANN Board and staff whilst this is 
sorted please?

Kind regards,

Lesley

From: Stéphane Van Gelder 
<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 23:55:22 +0200
To: Lesley Cowley <lesley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:lesley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Gabriella Schittek 
<gabriella.schittek@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gabriella.schittek@xxxxxxxxx>>, Glen de 
Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Glen@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG)

Leslie,

At its meeting yesterday, the GNSO Council passed the following motion on the 
JIG. As per this motion, I wanted to inform you of the GNSO's approval of the 
JIG's final report, as it pertains to new gTLDs.

Happy to answer any questions you may have. Please pass this on to the ccNSO as 
you see fit.

Thanks,

Stéphane



Motion on the JIG Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs
===========================================================

WHEREAS,
The Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) was created by mutual charters of 
the ccNSO (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jiwg-charter.pdf) and the GNSO 
(http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200907);

The JIG identified 3 issues of common interest: 1. Single Character IDN TLDs; 
2. IDN Variant TLDs; and, 3. Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs;
The JIG has issued an Initial Report 
(http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig-initial-report-26jul10-en.pdf) for 
public comments 
(http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-27jul10-en.htm), and 
thereupon a Draft Final Report 
(http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig-draft-final-report-04dec10-en.pdf) 
for public comments 
(http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-04dec10-en.htm), and have 
incorporated the comments into, and has reached consensus on the Final Report 
on Single Character IDN TLDs;

The JIG recommendations are consistent with the GNSO Final Report on the 
Introduction of New Top-Level Domains 
(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm), 
including the GNSO IDN WG Final Outcomes Report 
(http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/idn-wg-fr-22mar07.htm) and the GNSO Reserved 
Names WG 
(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/final-report-rn-wg-23may07.htm) on the 
issue of Single Character IDN gTLDs; and,
The JIG recommendations suggested implementable measures for the acceptance of 
Single Character IDN gTLDs.

RESOLVED,
The GNSO Council approves the JIG Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs, 
and forwards the report to the ICANN board and staff for its implementation 
into the next version of the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook as it pertains to the 
new gTLDs.

Resolved further, that the GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Chair to communicate 
its decision to the ccNSO Chair.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council hereby expresses its appreciation to 
the JIG for their hardwork, and look forward to receiving further reports on 
"IDN Variant TLDs" and "Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs".