Re: [council] FW: Interaction between the ICANN Board's IDN Variant Working Group and the GNSO
Hello everyone, With thanks to Jonathan for forwarding Ram¹s note, it does emphasize the importance of completing the current phase of LGR work for all 22 scripts, so please do assist if you can by forwarding the Program team¹s request from a few days ago to your communities and as broadly as possible. Please let me know if you¹d like me to resend the document, or if there are other groups or persons that you think we can send it to. I¹d like to also clarify one point in Ram¹s email the idea to have a ³self organized community group² was raised by community members who were present at the London meeting with the Board IDN Variants Working Group. This was viewed as an opportunity for those interested in the outcome of IDN Variants implementation to come together voluntarily to assist with ICANN¹s planning and implementation of future phases of the IDN Variant Program, where appropriate. As such, this is not being proposed or foreseen as a formal GNSO Working Group. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx From: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Organization: Afilias Reply-To: "jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thursday, August 28, 2014 at 1:07 PM To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [council] FW: Interaction between the ICANN Board's IDN Variant Working Group and the GNSO > > > > From: Ram Mohan [mailto:ram.mohan@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: 28 August 2014 13:04 > To: 'Jonathan Robinson' > Cc: 'Ram Mohan'; 'Board Variant Working Group' > Subject: RE: Interaction between the ICANN Board's IDN Variant Working Group > and the GNSO > Importance: High > > Dear Jonathan, > The Board¹s IDN Variant Working Group (BV-WG) members thank the GNSO Council > and its community for maintaining an active interest in the IDN program. We > are pleased to learn that we were able clarify the status of the IDN Program > during the discussion on topics of mutual interest with the GNSO Council and > community members in London. > > The GNSO Council is correct in its assessment that the current work on the > development of the Label Generation Ruleset (LGR) for the Root Zone (P2.2) is > technical in nature and policy advise is not required at this stage. If the > Integration Panel or the Generation Panels communicate any such need in the > future, the ICANN staff will issue the call for the advisor position as per > the procedure > <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/lgr-procedure-20mar13-en.pdf> > for developing the LGR for the Root Zone. ICANN staff will ensure that the > GNSO Council is informed in this case. > > BV-WG continues to oversee and guide the progress of the IDN Variant TLD > program. The Program is currently being advised by the BV-WG to focus on > organizing the community efforts for developing the LGR for the Root Zone, > which is the necessary pre-requisite for further implementation. The BV-WG > encourages active involvement of the GNSO community in this current phase of > the work by volunteering for the Generation Panels for the various scripts, > especially for Latin and Cyrillic. The BV-WG welcomes the GNSO community¹s > intention to self-organize to review the original New gTLD IDN WG > recommendations, with a view toward assisting Program staff with preparation > for P7 following maturation of the work on LGR. > > Based on our prior agreement, IDN Program staff will continue to provide > regular updates to GNSO Council and GNSO members. The BV-WG also looks > forward to the continued discussion on the status and the future of the IDN > Variant TLD program. > > Regards, > Ram Mohan > Chair, Board Variant Working Group > > > > From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 4:39 AM > To: Ram Mohan > Subject: Interaction between the ICANN Board's IDN Variant Working Group and > the GNSO > Importance: High > > Dear Ram, > I write to follow up on the meeting in London between the ICANN Board¹s IDN > Variant Working Group and a number of GNSO Council and community members. I¹d > like to thank you and the other Board members for taking the time to meet with > them to discuss the progress of ICANN¹s IDN Variant Program. We believe the > discussion was helpful to all of us, and appreciate the updates that ICANN > staff has been providing to the GNSO regarding ongoing work on the Program. > I¹d like to follow up on a specific observation that had been shared by a few > GNSO community members in Singapore and London, regarding a perceived need for > policy input into the Program by individuals with experience and expertise in > ICANN policy development. Our discussions in Singapore and now in London have > served to clarify that the current work being done in the Program (and > specifically in P2.2) is largely technical in nature. In addition, I > understand that ICANN's call last summer for advisors and experts to assist > the Label Generation Rule-set (LGR) panels provided that the LGR panels might > call on advisors (including ICANN staff) as the need arises. I note further > that an advisor has already been appointed to the Integration Panel and that > ICANN has announced that any additional advisors to be appointed will be at > the request of the panels, in accordance with the LGR Procedure. > As the Program progresses, and particularly in the near future as the panels > conclude their work, some GNSO community members have noted that should the > need for policy expertise arise at any point there are individuals within the > GNSO who will be willing to volunteer to assist. In this regard the GNSO > Council will be happy to serve as a contact point for any such requests. > Separately, I note that a suggestion was made at the London meeting for > interested GNSO community members to ³self-organize² to review the original > New gTLD IDN WG recommendations, with a view toward assisting Program staff > with preparation for P7. It is my hope as GNSO Chair that these suggestions, > along with ICANN staff continuing to provide their regular update to the GNSO > on the Program, will allow the GNSO community to be of assistance to the > important work of the Program and, in particular, if and when any policy > questions are encountered. > Thank you again for your time. I look forward to continuing our discussion and > to facilitating any appropriate involvement of interested members of the GNSO > community in the current and future work of the IDN Variant Program. > Best regards, > > Jonathan Robinson > GNSO Council Chair > Attachment:
smime.p7s
|