<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>RE: [council] RE: statement and response on the IDNC Interim Report</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Edmon,<BR>
<BR>
Where are we at on this?<BR>
<BR>
Chuck<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Edmon Chung [<A HREF="mailto:edmon@dotasia.org">mailto:edmon@dotasia.org</A>]<BR>
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 10:37 AM Eastern Standard Time<BR>
To: 'Council GNSO'<BR>
Subject: [council] RE: statement and response on the IDNC Interim Report<BR>
<BR>
Hi Everyone,<BR>
<BR>
Not sure if the previous file/email did get through to everyone. But<BR>
anyway, here is a slightly updated version based on the newly published<BR>
draft from the IDNC<BR>
(<A HREF="http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-13jun08-en.htm">http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-13jun08-en.htm</A> /<BR>
<A HREF="http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/idn-cctld-fast-track-draft-final-report">http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/idn-cctld-fast-track-draft-final-report</A><BR>
-recommendations-13jun08.pdf).<BR>
<BR>
Edmon<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
> -----Original Message-----<BR>
> From: Edmon Chung [<A HREF="mailto:edmon@dotasia.org">mailto:edmon@dotasia.org</A>]<BR>
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 12:11 AM<BR>
> To: 'gnso-idnc-initial@icann.org'<BR>
> Cc: 'GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG'; 'Avri Doria'<BR>
> Subject: RE: statement and response on the IDNC Interim Report<BR>
><BR>
> Sending this again, as it seems the previous one didn't go through.<BR>
> Edmon<BR>
><BR>
> PS. Glen/Avri, in case this doesn't go through to the list, could you let<BR>
me know.<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> -----Original Message-----<BR>
> From: Edmon Chung [<A HREF="mailto:edmon@dotasia.org">mailto:edmon@dotasia.org</A>]<BR>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 3:50 PM<BR>
> To: 'gnso-idnc-initial@icann.org'<BR>
> Subject: RE: [council] RE: statement and response on the IDNC Interim<BR>
Report<BR>
><BR>
> Hi Everyone,<BR>
><BR>
> This is long over due... anyway, please find a brief document I have<BR>
drafted as<BR>
> mentioned previously.<BR>
><BR>
> Comments welcome. Since we will be having a council meeting later this<BR>
week,<BR>
> perhaps it is best we decide how to move forward on this after that. But<BR>
meanwhile<BR>
> please provide your thoughts.<BR>
><BR>
> Edmon<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> PS. Glen/Avri, is it appropriate to post this to the GNSO wiki, and how do<BR>
I do that?<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> > -----Original Message-----<BR>
> > From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<BR>
> > [<A HREF="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org</A>] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung<BR>
> > Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 7:10 PM<BR>
> > To: 'Council GNSO'<BR>
> > Cc: gnso-idnc-initial@icann.org<BR>
> > Subject: [council] RE: statement and response on the IDNC Interim<BR>
> > Report<BR>
> ><BR>
> ><BR>
> > It seems I have not been able to send this email out to the<BR>
> > 'gnso-idnc-initial@icann.org' list.<BR>
> > Am sending to council instead.<BR>
> > Edmon<BR>
> ><BR>
> ><BR>
> ><BR>
> > > -----Original Message-----<BR>
> > > From: Edmon Chung [<A HREF="mailto:edmon@dotasia.org">mailto:edmon@dotasia.org</A>]<BR>
> > > Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 7:05 PM<BR>
> > > To: 'gnso-idnc-initial@icann.org'<BR>
> > > Cc: 'jonb'<BR>
> > > Subject: RE: statement and response on the IDNC Interim Report<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > I just realized that my earlier message was bounced. I am not sure<BR>
> > > if it<BR>
> > was<BR>
> > > because I used a different account (edmon@registry.asia vs.<BR>
> > edmon@dotasia.org)<BR>
> > > or it was because the mailing-list was closed down. Anyway, am<BR>
> > > trying<BR>
> > again.<BR>
> > > Edmon<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > > -----Original Message-----<BR>
> > > > From: Edmon Chung [<A HREF="mailto:edmon@registry.asia">mailto:edmon@registry.asia</A>]<BR>
> > > > Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 4:37 PM<BR>
> > > > To: 'gnso-idnc-initial@icann.org'<BR>
> > > > Cc: 'jonb'<BR>
> > > > Subject: statement and response on the IDNC Interim Report<BR>
> > > ><BR>
> > > > Hi Everyone,<BR>
> > > ><BR>
> > > > I know this is 2 weeks overdue, but would like to try to pick this<BR>
> > > > up<BR>
> > and move<BR>
> > > > quickly.<BR>
> > > ><BR>
> > > > Here are the few topics I think we should focus on for a response:<BR>
> > > ><BR>
> > > > 1. Fast Track as an ongoing process<BR>
> > > > - acceptable but should ensure the continued security and<BR>
> > > > stability<BR>
> > of the<BR>
> > > > Internet<BR>
> > > > - i.e. introduction/delegations must be predictable and not<BR>
ad hoc<BR>
> > > > - i.e. in rounds and not "at anytime"<BR>
> > > > - rules and mechanisms must be setup prior to the first<BR>
round<BR>
> > > ><BR>
> > > > 2. Meaningful String<BR>
> > > > - applaud the adoption of the criteria<BR>
> > > > - agree with the adherence to official language<BR>
> > > > - caution the use of exceptions<BR>
> > > ><BR>
> > > > 3. Non-contentious<BR>
> > > > - charter states: " The purpose of the IDNC Working Group<BR>
(IDNC<BR>
> > > > WG)<BR>
> > is to<BR>
> > > > develop and report on feasible methods, if any, that would enable<BR>
> > > > the<BR>
> > > introduction,<BR>
> > > > in a timely manner and in a manner that ensures the continued<BR>
> > > > security<BR>
> > and<BR>
> > > > stability of the Internet, of a limited number of non-contentious<BR>
> > > > IDN<BR>
> > ccTLDs while<BR>
> > > > the overall policy is being developed."<BR>
> > > > - suggested change of scope to: " E: The proposed string and<BR>
> > delegation<BR>
> > > > request should be noncontentious<BR>
> > > > within the territory" is not consistent with the charter<BR>
> > > ><BR>
> > > > 4. Objection mechanism<BR>
> > > > - no discussion in the Interim report of why the<BR>
> > > > - understand the sensitivities around a formal objection<BR>
mechanism<BR>
> > > > - informal process acceptable<BR>
> > > > - without already built in a channel to facilitate the<BR>
voicing of<BR>
> > concerns<BR>
> > > > would put undue pressure on ICANN board to make decision<BR>
> > > ><BR>
> > > > 5. Contractual relationship<BR>
> > > > - without contractual relationship unable to bind Fast Track<BR>
> > > > ccTLDs<BR>
> > to PDP<BR>
> > > > - overarching technical and techno-policy requirements for<BR>
IDN<BR>
> > deployment<BR>
> > > > (IDN Guidelines, standards, IANA table etc.)<BR>
> > > > - Fast Track is different from PDP and will not set<BR>
precedence<BR>
> > > > nor<BR>
> > pre-empt<BR>
> > > > PDP<BR>
> > > ><BR>
> > > ><BR>
> > > > Thoughts?<BR>
> > > ><BR>
> > > > I will draft a brief document over the weekend with the above (and<BR>
> > incorporate<BR>
> > > > other comments as they come in).<BR>
> > > ><BR>
> > > > Since there isn't much time before our next council call on May 8,<BR>
> > perhaps it is<BR>
> > > > best to coordinate over this mailing list. If others feel a<BR>
> > teleconference would be<BR>
> > > > better, please suggest to this list.<BR>
> > > ><BR>
> > > > Edmon<BR>
> > > ><BR>
> > > ><BR>
> > > > PS. Glen, please add John Bing to the list.<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>