After a more thorough meeting of the drafting team at the ccNSO, please find attached an updated draft of the charter for consideration (version 4). There are quite a bit of edits however the core concept is not changed and in fact provides probably a more clear directive for the JIG. The changes include: - First paragraph in the purpose section edited to be more directly describing the emergence of the group - In the scope section the forgoing of the description of what constitutes an issue of common interest, but rather depend on the examples. Also, added description to handle out of scope issues. - Added a section "Omission in or unreasonable impact of Charter" to provide a bit more flexibility for the WG to conduct its work - Added a section "Closure of the Working Group" to be closed when either the new gTLD process or the IDN ccTLD Fast Track is implemented (extendable by mutual agreement) - Removed the "Draft Timeline for Initial Tasks" section. This is to avoid undue pressure on the JIG and to provide a better environment for successful cooperation in the group between the ccNSO and GNSO The one change of substance is the introduction of some parity in representation between the GNSO and the ccNSO on the JIG. The previous draft made no limitations, this version specifies that there be: - 5 members each from the GNSO and ccNSO respectively - Plus the chair of each council (or an alternate appointed by the chair) The main motivation for the limitation is to have some parity in representation, whereas the number 5 is selected because the ccNSO had had good success in using that for representing the 5 regions (the 5 members from the GNSO does not have to be from the 5 regions). I think this is a reasonable approach and compromise, although I am aware of the limitation and its effects. Overall, I think the edits are constructive and provides a good foundation for successful work. I am enthusiastic about the opportunity for the ccNSO and GNSO to work together collaboratively. :-) Looking forward to people's thoughts and comments. Edmon PS. Do not think there needs to be any change in the Proposed Motion, except a typo for the Resolved part: RESOLVED: To initiate together with the ccNSO a Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) based on the Draft Charter. ((deleting "be formed" before "based on")) > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck > Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:31 PM > To: Edmon Chung; Council GNSO > Subject: RE: [council] Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) > > > I will second this motion. > > Chuck > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung > > Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:22 AM > > To: 'Council GNSO' > > Subject: [council] Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) > > > > Hi Everyone, > > > > This is following up on one of the items brought up during > > our meeting in Sydney, including at the ccNSO-GNSO lunch and > > subsequently at our council meeting. That is the possibility > > of creating a Joint Working Group between the ccNSO and the > > GNSO to discuss issues of common interest regarding IDN TLDs. > > > > Myself and Zhang Jian of ccNSO have been corresponding > > thereupon on drafting a charter for this Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN > > Working Group (JIG). See attached the proposed Draft Charter > > for the group. The draft was also circulated to the IDNG > > Drafting Team and the ccNSO and feedback incorporated. > > > > The key aspects of the charter include: > > - Purpose: identify and report on areas of common interest > > among the ccNSO and the GNSO for IDN TLDs > > - Scope: issues where implementation for IDN ccTLDs and IDN > > gTLDs should be consistent OR issues where there is > > inter-relation between implementation of IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs > > - Issues are considered to be out of scope if either the > > ccNSO or the GNSO believes it is not an issue of common interest > > - The implementation schedule for the ongoing New gTLD > > process and the IDN ccTLD Fast Track should not be delayed or > > wait for the report from the JIG > > - Target to produce a final report for the initial tasks > > before Seoul meeting > > > > Based on the discussions in Sydney, there seems to be support > > for creating a joint working group, and the charter is an > > attempt to create a mutually agreeable framework. > > > > Below is a draft motion for the formation of the JIG: > > > > =============================================== > > > > WHEREAS > > > > GNSO IDN WG successfully completed its outcomes report in > > March 2007 and the GNSO Council approved the incorporation of > > its findings in the GNSO Final Report on the Introduction of > > New gTLDs in September 2007, describing policy requirements > > for the introduction of IDN gTLDs; > > > > The Board Proposal from the IDNC WG was completed in June > > 2008, describing the IDN ccTLD Fast Track methodology; > > > > Both the drafts and excerpts for the Applicant Guidebook for > > the New gTLD process, and the drafts for the IDN ccTLD Fast > > Track Implementation Plan had included implementation > > considerations for IDN TLDs; and, > > > > Issues of common interest between new IDN ccTLDs and new IDN > > gTLDs can be identified, including issues where > > implementation of IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs should be > > consistent (e.g. IDN Language Table implementation at the > > root zone), and where implementation of IDN ccTLDs and IDN > > gTLDs are inter-related (e.g. 2-Character length TLDs as a > > reservation for ccTLDs); > > > > RESOLVED: > > > > To initiate together with the ccNSO a Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN > > Working Group (JIG) be formed based on the Draft Charter. > > > > =============================================== > > > > Comments and thoughts welcome, hopefully we can get this > > Joint WG together with the ccNSO. Think it would be a > > meaningful development for ICANN also. > > > > Edmon > > > > > >
Attachment:
JIG-charter-DRAFT4.doc
Description: MS-Word document