Hello Mawaki, The archives of the working group are available here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-idn-wg/ The initial intent was to review the issues report and identify how to proceed. Part of the issue was how to separate or combine the work that might be done by the GNSO versus the ccNSO. Two teleconferences were held (in different timezones). The summary of the discussions is available here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-idn-wg/msg00008.html Recordings of those teleconferences can be accessed in the usual place: http://www.gnso.icann.org/calendar/ There was a physical meeting of the working group in Marrakech. A summary of that meeting is available at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-idn-wg/msg00012.html Part of this discussion focussed on whether there was support for the development of a table of IDN-ccTLDs, and treat all other IDNs as new gTLDs. The physical meeting formed the basis for a presentation at the IDN workshop the following day: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-idn-wg/msg00009.html, which basically outlined how a policy development process might work. The work shifted to looking a proposed terms of reference for a PDP on IDNs - this work moved to the Council. This was on the assumption that a separate PDP would be formed and the Council needed to approve initiating the PDP based on an agreed terms of reference. If a PDP was initiated it would be expected that the working group would then form the basis for a PDP task force, and operate under the processes set down in the ICANN bylaws. There was further discussion of IDNs during the new gTLD meeting in Amsterdam and it was agreed that as much as possible IDNs should be treated in a similar way to the work on new gTLDs. The exception is around allowable strings. During the last Council meeting, it was decided that the additional policy work required for IDN-gTLDs beyond that already covered by the new gTLD work, was not yet sufficiently defined. Thus the GNSO IDN working group would be reformed to consider more recent work (e.g recent IETF papers, outcomes of the technical tests etc), and whether additional work should be done via a PDP (ie there are significant policy issues), or done via expert working groups. You are most welcome to join this working group if you wish to follow that work. Note I understand that the ccNSO is ramping up its work on this topic, and the chair of the ccNSO requested a meeting with the GNSO in Brazil (not sure where that will fit in the schedule yet). Regards, Bruce Tonkin