see below.. On Sep 22, 2012 12:22 PM, "Rinalia Abdul Rahim" < rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, Cheryl.
The recommendations are very comprehensive in the sense that it covers
the entire process of IDNccTLD application and approval. This is excellent and should be commended. They are also drawing from past experiences with the Fast Track process, which is good.
A few questions about the proposed policies:
1. Were there any sticky/contentious points in the development of the
recommendations? 《yup but over last few years we have "worked them out" to get to this consensus view ;-) 》
2. Variants are not addressed in the set of recommendations, pointing to discussions that are still ongoing, which is fine, but when the variant rules for the root zone is agreed upon, I would expect that ccTLDs would be bound by it as well as gTLDs - Any issues with raising this in the response to the document? 《I expect so also but as it IS so important an issue I'd see raising it in s response a positive thing as it keeps other 'listed' for PDP attention...》 3. The Future Challenges WG raised the issue of the need to somehow standardize or address the issue of the diversity of ccTLD practices using ICANN's gTLD best practices etc - Perhaps this is another opportunity to raise the issue. Any thoughts on this matter? 《hmm that could cloud this issue and would be quickly deemed "Out Of Scope" for this ccTLD PDP WG.... So I would advise addressing that issue in superset fora...》 4. The final recommendation regarding the Permanent IDNccTLD Advisory Panel calls for 1 representative from the ALAC, 2 from GAC and ccNSO respectively, and 1 from SSAC (I see a mirror of Board representation here). What about the criteria in terms of qualification or expertise level of the representatives? Were there any discussions on this? Was it the default position that it should be left to the respective bodies to determine? 《No specific discussion in the WG thst criteria along with charter determination and details would be a ccNSO Council matter; but experience with these community input WG's in ccNSO has generally lead to the trust given to the sending committee/org/constituency (with I suspect an little briefing or two Chair to Chair ;-) to ensure the right talent is sent... FYI as ALAC Liaison to ccNSO this is frequently a role that gets to be for that rep... but not always...》
Best regards,
Rinalia
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> wrote:
Edmon/WG this is the Proposed ccNSO IDN PDP drafting document that I referenced at the last ALAC call .... I am in the WG that had authored it but would appreciate a review and Snyder comments (including supportive ones) fRom this WG for lodgement by that ALAC.... Needs not be wordy... On Sep 13, 2012 8:47 AM, "Matt Ashtiani" <matt.ashtiani@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Edmon,
Please note that the Draft Recommendations Overall Policy for the Selection of IDN ccTLD Strings PC<https://community.icann.org/x/xYUoAg> is now open. Please advise if you think a Statement on this PC is
necessary.
Regards,
Matt Ashtiani
At-Large Coordination Officer
ICANN
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 USA _______________________________________________ IDN-WG mailing list IDN-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg
IDN WG Wiki:
https://st.icann.org/idn-policy/index.cgi?at_large_idn_policy
_______________________________________________ IDN-WG mailing list IDN-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg
IDN WG Wiki: https://st.icann.org/idn-policy/index.cgi?at_large_idn_policy