I am forwarding this for Edmon.
Chuck
From: Edmon Chung [mailto:edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
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@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 2 January 2009 00:35:26 EST
To: <gnso-idnc-initial@xxxxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
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>