Sounds like a workable plan to me. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 12:26 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] FW: GNSO Comments re. IDN ccTLD Fast Track Implementation Plan
Hi,
Thanks Edmon for doing this and Chuck for passing it on.
I suggest the following approach to the publication of these comments:
As the deadline for submitting these comments is 7-Jan-09 and our next meeting isn't until the 8th, I would like to ask for a review period ending 6 Jan 09 at 1200 UTC. If there are no objections to submitting this as a GNSO council comment and there are no major edits in that time then I will submit it as GNSO Council comment.
On the other hand if there are any objections or any major changes, then those changes need to freeze by 6 Jan 09 1200 UTC and a 24 hour approval period ending 7-Jan-09 1200 UTC will be initiated.
If there are no objections at that point, I will submit it as the GNSO Council comment. If there are still objections, then it can be submitted as an independent statement listing those who sign on to it, but it would not be submitted as a Council position.
thanks a.
On 2 Jan 2009, at 18:34, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I am forwarding this for Edmon.
Chuck
From: Edmon Chung [mailto:edmon@registry.asia] Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 6:23 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: 'Avri Doria'; 'Glen de Saint Géry' Subject: RE: GNSO Comments re. IDN ccTLD Fast Track Implementation Plan
Seems like the email I tried to send to the council list did not get sent... (see attached) wonder if you got it earlier... I will try to send again... in case it doesnt get through please help me post to the list. Edmon
From: Edmon Chung [mailto:edmon@registry.asia] Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 11:26 AM To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Edmon Chung' Cc: 'Avri Doria'; 'Glen de Saint Géry' Subject: RE: GNSO Comments re. IDN ccTLD Fast Track Implementation Plan
Sorry for the delays. Will have a draft out today. Edmon
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, January 1, 2009 3:42 AM To: Edmon Chung Cc: Avri Doria; Glen de Saint Géry Subject: GNSO Comments re. IDN ccTLD Fast Track Implementation Plan Importance: High
Edmon,
We are just a little over a week before our 8 Jan Council meeting and I don't think we have seen anything from you regarding a possible GNSO statement regarding the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Implementation Plan. We really need that as soon as possible so that we can discuss on list prior to the meeting and act on it in the meeting. Also, the comment period ends on 9 Jan.
Chuck
From: "Edmon Chung" <edmon@registry.asia> Date: 2 January 2009 00:35:26 EST To: <gnso-idnc-initial@icann.org>, "Council GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: IDN ccTLD Fast Track implementation plan council comments
Hi Everyone,
Apologies for the delay on this matter, please find attached the draft for the council comments on the Draft IDN ccTLD Fast Track implementation plan.
The document is mainly separated into 2 parts: (A) response on Module 7, where 5 open questions were raised (B) reemphasizing some of the issues raised previously
For (A) the 5 open questions listed in Module 7 were: 1. Ensuring ongoing compliance with the IDN technical standards, including the IDNA protocol and the IDN Guidelines. 2. Possible establishment of financial contributions. 3. IDN ccTLD operator association to the ICANN community. 4. Compliance with consensus policies 5. Prevention of contention issues with existing TLDs and those under application in the gTLD process.
The draft mainly extracted statements from previous documents to respond to the topics, but have also emphasized that we may require much broader input from the community on the issues because they are largely new considerations not specifically discussed previously. In particular, 3 & 4, and some respects 2 & 5.
For (B) 3 items were specifically reemphasized: 1. Lack of structure for implementation in the situation where a proposed Fast Track IDN ccTLD string is not listed in the UNGEGN manual (i.e. not in a particular authoritative list)
2. Lack of clarity in the process for linguistic process check and confirmation of a requested string 3. Lack of consideration for avoiding confusingly similar strings
Comments/thoughts welcome.
Since, the deadline for comments to the draft implementation plan is Jan 9, in view of time, perhaps we can have a discussion on the council list and on our meeting on Jan 8 to finalize our response.
Edmon
PS. Happy New Year! :-)
<GNSO-Comments-FastTrackImplementationPlan.doc>