[IDN-WG] Draft Recommendations Overall Policy for the Selection of IDN ccTLD Strings PC

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr]

see below..
On Sep 22, 2012 12:22 PM, "Rinalia Abdul Rahim" <
rinalia.abdulrahim at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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
>
>