FYI

--- Bruce Tonkin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Subject: RE: [council] Regarding Redrafted IDN ToR
> Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 20:57:58 +1000
> From: "Bruce Tonkin" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: "Council GNSO" <[log in to unmask]>
> CC: <[log in to unmask]>, "Kurt Pritz" <[log in to unmask]>
> 
> Hello All,
> 
> I had conference call with the chair of ICANN Board (Vint Cerf) and
> Chair of the ccNSO (Chris Disspain) along with several ICANN staff
> members, to discuss coordination of work on IDN TLDs.
> 
> The general concerns raised were:
> 
> (1) The rules for creating new IDN-gTLDs should be consistent with
> the
> rules for creating new ASCII-gTLDs.
> 
> (2) Any rules with respect to allowable characters, scripts,
> languages
> etc in the TLD strings for new IDN-ccTLDs should be consistent with
> the
> rules for new IDN-gTLDs.
> 
> The discussion was fairly consistent with some of the discussions
> of our
> last conference call.
> 
> There was support for the current draft of the GNSO IDN terms of
> reference.
> 
> The terms of reference already make clear that work on IDN-gTLDs
> will
> make reference to the work in PDPDec05 on new gTLDs (e.g TOR 2a),
> and
> that we will identify and document any policy issue for which it is
> essential that policy is harmonized for all IDN-TLDs (TOR 1b).
> 
> It was suggested that once the GNSO approves its terms of
> reference,
> that we should create a cover letter for communication to the other
> supporting organisations, and advisory committees (including
> President's
> Advisory Committee for IDNs)  that sets out some general principles
> and
> objectives of the work.  The cover letter should also give examples
> of
> policy issues that would require harmonisation between the ccTLDS
> and
> gTLDs.  We can probably expand on the current preamble.    We
> should
> work with the ccNSO in identifying some of these issues to include
> in
> the cover letter.   
> 
> Note that any recommendations that are intended to apply to the
> ccTLDs
> will need to go through the ccNSO policy development process.   For
> example, the GNSO may develop a draft recommendation that relates
> to an
> issue that is common to ccTLDs and gTLDs.  This recommendation
> would
> then need to be taken through the ccNSO process.  If our
> recommendation
> is as a result of wide consultation and careful consideration, we
> would
> hope that the ccNSO process could be fast tracked.   The converse
> could
> also apply where a recommendations is developed outside of the GNSO
> process, and we could fast track its consideration within the GNSO.
> We may decide to delay making a final decision on the
> recommendation
> until we have confidence that the recommendation will also be
> supported
> by the ccNSO.
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> 
> 
> 
>