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 > > > >