Thanks Edmon. Very helpful but it is not clear to me what changes you made in the draft. Maybe I just didn't read it carefully. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 9:17 PM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] GNSO response to IDNC Initial Report
A mailing-list was created with the following subscribed on the list: Edmon Chung Avri Doria Olga Cavalli Charles Sha'ban Cary Karp Olof Nordling Tina Dam Liz Gasster
We had one conference call, and the current draft includes comments collected during that session along with some additional correspondence I had with Cary on the first question.
I would admit that much of the drafting was done by myself.
In terms of process, the IDNC is generally flexible and welcomes the input by the GNSO. The supposed deadline was last Tuesday, but we have been asked to provide input asap.
I think it should be good if we could have a resolution on it in the upcoming meeting on the 6th.
Regarding objection procedure, I had incorporated the language from the GNSO response to the ccNSO/GAC issues paper. Given the context I agree with your suggestion. Please find attached an updated draft.
Edmon
-----Original Message----- From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 10:35 PM To: Edmon Chung; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] GNSO response to IDNC Initial Report
My compliments Edmon on a very thorough effort. Did you do this yourself or were others involved? Regardless, thanks for all the work. I have just one initial thought and two GNSO process questions.
Regarding objection procedure on p.3 (Under D), I wonder whether an objection procedure might still have value even in case an explicit list is provided or instrinsically defined criteria are given. It would be ideal if a list or criteria covered all possible objections, but I am not sure that is realistic considering the dyanmics of the environment.
Do you anticipate getting GNSO Council approval of this document? What is the deadline for comments?
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 3:53 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] GNSO response to IDNC Initial Report
Hi Everyone,
Attached is the draft response for the IDNC Initial Report.
Much of it is adapted from previous documents and discussions, especially from the GNSO response to the ccNSO/GAC issues paper and the IDN WG outcomes report.
The document tries takes a suggestive tone rather than an instructive one.
The key elements include:
1. non-contentious and associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes
2. Requirements and process appropriate for the Fast Track may not be applicable to the longer term process.
3. Adherence to the IDN guidelines and policies to reduce the risks of spoofing using IDN homoglyphs.
4. Fast Track IDN ccTLD strings must not be confusingly similar to existing TLDs
5. Appropriate and balanced participation from the ICANN community must be maintained throughout the Fast Track process
6. ICANN should have a contract or some other form of agreement with the Fast Track ccTLD manager that includes appropriate technical, operational and financial requirements.
Please take a look and provide comments.
Edmon