[council] Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG)

[Edmon Chung]

Attached updated draft charter based on feedback received. (changes
underlined)
Basically 1 change only: in the Membership section, changed

from:
"Council will appoint 5 members to the WG in accordance with its own rules
and procedures"

to
"Council will appoint no more than 5 members to the WG in accordance with
its own rules and procedures"

Edmon


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org]
On
> Behalf Of Edmon Chung
> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 6:03 PM
> To: 'Council GNSO'
> Subject: RE: [council] Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG)
> 
> 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 at gnso.icann.org
> > [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org]
> 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 at gnso.icann.org
> > > [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: JIG-charter-DRAFT4.1.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 33792 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20090722/e4e9ff56/JIG-charter-DRAFT4.1.doc>