Edmon, Where are we at on this? Chuck Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com) -----Original Message----- From: Edmon Chung [mailto:edmon@dotasia.org] Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 10:37 AM Eastern Standard Time To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] RE: statement and response on the IDNC Interim Report Hi Everyone, Not sure if the previous file/email did get through to everyone. But anyway, here is a slightly updated version based on the newly published draft from the IDNC (http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-13jun08-en.htm / http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/idn-cctld-fast-track-draft-final-report -recommendations-13jun08.pdf). Edmon
-----Original Message----- From: Edmon Chung [mailto:edmon@dotasia.org] Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 12:11 AM To: 'gnso-idnc-initial@icann.org' Cc: 'GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG'; 'Avri Doria' Subject: RE: statement and response on the IDNC Interim Report
Sending this again, as it seems the previous one didn't go through. Edmon
PS. Glen/Avri, in case this doesn't go through to the list, could you let me know.
-----Original Message----- From: Edmon Chung [mailto:edmon@dotasia.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 3:50 PM To: 'gnso-idnc-initial@icann.org' Subject: RE: [council] RE: statement and response on the IDNC Interim Report
Hi Everyone,
This is long over due... anyway, please find a brief document I have drafted as mentioned previously.
Comments welcome. Since we will be having a council meeting later this week, perhaps it is best we decide how to move forward on this after that. But meanwhile please provide your thoughts.
Edmon
PS. Glen/Avri, is it appropriate to post this to the GNSO wiki, and how do I do that?
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 7:10 PM To: 'Council GNSO' Cc: gnso-idnc-initial@icann.org Subject: [council] RE: statement and response on the IDNC Interim Report
It seems I have not been able to send this email out to the 'gnso-idnc-initial@icann.org' list. Am sending to council instead. Edmon
-----Original Message----- From: Edmon Chung [mailto:edmon@dotasia.org] Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 7:05 PM To: 'gnso-idnc-initial@icann.org' Cc: 'jonb' Subject: RE: statement and response on the IDNC Interim Report
I just realized that my earlier message was bounced. I am not sure if it was because I used a different account (edmon@registry.asia vs. edmon@dotasia.org) or it was because the mailing-list was closed down. Anyway, am trying again. Edmon
-----Original Message----- From: Edmon Chung [mailto:edmon@registry.asia] Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 4:37 PM To: 'gnso-idnc-initial@icann.org' Cc: 'jonb' Subject: statement and response on the IDNC Interim Report
Hi Everyone,
I know this is 2 weeks overdue, but would like to try to pick this up and move quickly.
Here are the few topics I think we should focus on for a response:
1. Fast Track as an ongoing process - acceptable but should ensure the continued security and stability of the Internet - i.e. introduction/delegations must be predictable and not ad hoc - i.e. in rounds and not "at anytime" - rules and mechanisms must be setup prior to the first round
2. Meaningful String - applaud the adoption of the criteria - agree with the adherence to official language - caution the use of exceptions
3. Non-contentious - charter states: " The purpose of the IDNC Working Group (IDNC WG) is to develop and report on feasible methods, if any, that would enable the introduction, in a timely manner and in a manner that ensures the continued security and stability of the Internet, of a limited number of non-contentious IDN ccTLDs while the overall policy is being developed." - suggested change of scope to: " E: The proposed string and delegation request should be noncontentious within the territory" is not consistent with the charter
4. Objection mechanism - no discussion in the Interim report of why the - understand the sensitivities around a formal objection mechanism - informal process acceptable - without already built in a channel to facilitate the voicing of concerns would put undue pressure on ICANN board to make decision
5. Contractual relationship - without contractual relationship unable to bind Fast Track ccTLDs to PDP - overarching technical and techno-policy requirements for IDN deployment (IDN Guidelines, standards, IANA table etc.) - Fast Track is different from PDP and will not set precedence nor pre-empt PDP
Thoughts?
I will draft a brief document over the weekend with the above (and incorporate other comments as they come in).
Since there isn't much time before our next council call on May 8, perhaps it is best to coordinate over this mailing list. If others feel a teleconference would be better, please suggest to this list.
Edmon
PS. Glen, please add John Bing to the list.