Hi Everyone, Sending this ahead of the council meeting here in Sydney. There has been increased interest in the discussion regarding this issue in the last couple of weeks, and then a very constructive discussion Sunday morning at the GNSO IDN session. The result of which moved the direction of the group from purely talking about an IDN gTLD fast track to a more basic foundation to consider methods to harmonize/coordinate the introduction of new IDN ccTLDs and new IDN gTLDs to the root. Subsequently the items were also brought up at the GNSO/ccNSO lunch earlier in the week, and there seems to be enough common interest to work together, especially on issues of common interest (in 2. below). Basically, the charter is rewritten based on a different starting point: 1. To identify and report on feasible methods and measures for harmonizing the introduction of new IDN TLDs - PREMISE: IF the full new gTLD process is further delayed - previous GNSO council statements (for reference): - if they [new IDN ccTLDs / new IDN gTLDs] are not introduced at the same time, steps should be taken so that neither category is advantaged or disadvantaged, and procedures should be developed to avoid possible conflicts - the GNSO Council strongly believes that neither the New gTLD or ccTLD fast track process should result in IDN TLDs in the root before the other unless both the GNSO and ccNSO so agree - i.e. the group would consider multiple options, e.g.: - OPTION 1: come to a mutual understanding that the firsts of the new IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs would be introduced into the root at approximately the same time - OPTION 2: IDN gTLD Fast Track - OPTION n...: other possibilities to be identified 2. To identify and make implementation recommendations for certain issues of common interest (between IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs) - e.g.: IDNA standards revision - Variant management at the root - etc. See attached revised charter. We have also received strong reminders to emphasize on the user experience and user expectations of IDN TLDs to set the stage for the discussion. The current draft is very focused on the policy processes. Will add in the underlying considerations for consistency and to deliver on user expectations in the next version. We are not moving for a motion tomorrow, but am also including a draft below for everyone's reference. I think the "WHEREAS" section seems relatively stable, we need to figure out what the resolutions should be. Edmon =========================== WHEREAS: The ICANN community has been discussing issues related to IDN and IDN TLDs since 2000, and the ICANN board as early as September 2000 recognized "that it is important that the Internet evolve to be more accessible to those who do not use the ASCII character set"; There is expressed demand from the community, especially from language communities around the world who do not use English or a Latin based script as a primary language, including the CJK (Chinese Japanese Korean) communities and the right-to-left directional script communities (e.g. Arabic, Hebrew, Persian, etc.), for advancing the introduction of Internationalized Top-Level Domains (IDN TLDs); 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 community observes the successful development of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track based on the IDNC WG recommendations, and the ongoing progress for the Implementation of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process; The implementation of the New gTLD process is ongoing and the schedule and development of the implementation should continue; GNSO Council had made comments in response to the ccNSO-GAC Issues Report on IDN Issues, as well as in its comments on the IDNC WG Final Report expressed that “the introduction of IDN gTLDs or IDN ccTLDs should not be delayed because of lack of readiness of one category, but if they are not introduced at the same time, steps should be taken so that neither category is advantaged or disadvantaged, and procedures should be developed to avoid possible conflicts”; GNSO Council made a resolution in January 2009 to assert that “the GNSO Council strongly believes that neither the New gTLD or ccTLD fast track process should result in IDN TLDs in the root before the other unless both the GNSO and ccNSO so agree”; RESOLVED (TO BE DRAFTED): - initiate joint working group with ccNSO? - initiate GNSO working group? - request board to create a working group? - emphasize our position regarding introduction of new IDN TLDs? - All of the above in parallel?