[nc-idn] Re: [council] IDN TF Update

["Oscar A. Robles-Garay" <orobles@nic.mx>]

Hereby I want to withdraw from the IDN TF and give my seat to Elisabeth 
Porteneuve
Oscar

At 03:39 AM 10/2/2001, YJ Park wrote:
>IDN TF members,
>
>This is for upcoming October NC teleconference IDN TF
>update where this TF needs to update new Chair for this
>TF according to proposed Agenda 5. Before we go further,
>let me summarize little progress IDN TF has made.
>
>Before Stokholm
>------------------------
>May 28, Monday:
>Status Report was circulated among then IDN Interim
>Committee members. It was recognized by then IDN
>Interim Committee members and reported during Stokholm
>NC meeting. During NC meeting, this committee was
>recognized as IDN Task Force chaired by YJ Park with
>its suggested Terms of Reference below.
>
>After Stockholm
>----------------------
>June 13, Wed:
>Expression to withdraw from IDN TF as chair but remain
>IDN TF member by YJ Park delivered to Names Council .
>
>July 14, Sat:
>IDN TF mailing list set up with updated members.
>"Grant Forsyth" <grant.forsyth@clear.co.nz>
>"Guillermo Carey" <gcarey@carey.cl>
>
>"YJ Park (MINC)" <yjpark@minc.org>
>"Oscar A. Robles Garay" <orobles@nic.mx>
>"Greg Ruth" <greg_ruth@yahoo.com>
>"Richard Tindal" <Richard.Tindal@neulevel.biz>
>
>During Montevideo
>--------------------------
>No report on IDN TF was requested and therefore, there
>was no report during DNSO meeting in Montevideo.
>
>As of October 2, Tue:
>gTLD constituency member changed from Richard Tindal
>to Richard Lindsay. "Danny Younger" from GA added. No
>member from registrar constituency yet as far as I know.
>
>YJ
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>
>To: "Guillermo Carey C." <gcarey@carey.cl>; "Sapiro, Miriam"
><MSapiro@netsol.com>; "Grant Forsyth" <grant.forsyth@clear.co.nz>
>Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 5:00 PM
>Subject: [Status Report] NC Interim Committee on IDN
>
>
> > Hello Committee members,
> >
> > I do hope you can look this through and feel free to make
> > your comments which would be updated after discussion.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > YJ
> >
> > I. Introduction
> >
> > Since late 1999, multilingual domain names(Hereafter,
> > it will be called "Internationalized Domain Names or IDN.)
> > ]was available in the market. After one and half years'
> > experiences, it is noted by DNSO/ICANN that there are
> > many issues should be openly dealt with among Internet
> > community.
> >
> > During Melbourne NC meeting on March 11, NC decided to
> > Establish an interim committee to propose terms of reference
> > on Multilingual Domain Names for an NC task force or other group.
> >
> > On the other hand, NC requested ICANN to review and
> > evaluate the Verisign Multilingual Testbed prior to live launch
> > of multilingual domain name registrations.
> >
> > II. Terms of Reference, version 1.0
> >
> > 1. Objectives of NC Task Force
> >
> > It was agreed that there has been little education or little
> > knowldege regarding IDN issues in DNSO. Therefore,
> > NC Task Force should encourage peole to be educated
> > about its current status.
> >
> > It was suggested that NC Task Force should work with
> > its relevant expert groups to provide more accurate and
> > timely analysis to the community. Those expert group are
> > IETF, MINC, AINC, CDNC, INFITT and other groups which
> > has been already formed to facilitate this.
> >
> > Based upon its works with various organizations, NC
> > Task Force is expected to make a report on the issue list
> > to the community both technical and policy level.
> >
> > It was proposed that NC Task Force should make its
> > recommendation to the Board with regard to IDN matters
> > after a wide range of IDN consultation process from DNSO
> > through its relevant expert groups .
> >
> > 2. Procedures and approaches
> >
> > 2.1. Survey
> >
> > There have been various survey efforts since April on
> > IDN issues. By sharing and having access to those results
> > of various survey will enhance more accuracy and finally
> > lead NC Task Force into better understanding on the issues.
> >
> > 2.2. Consultation
> >
> > NC Task Report produced based on survey results and other
> > measures should be properly consultated in the DNSO and with
> > other relevant expert groups which also made contributions to.
> >
> > 2.3. Consensus-building process
> >
> > It would be decided after such a wide consultation process
> > whether there is any consensus on either technique or policy
> > matters.
> >
> > If such demand is strongly shown NC Task Force should form
> > more inclusive Working Group to facilitate in-depth discussion
> > among interested people.
> >
> > If such demand is not strong enough to form another form of
> > bottom-up process, NC Task Force is expected to make its
> > final report to the Board.
> >
> > 3. Administrative Information
> >
> > Mailing List: (TBD)
> > Membership: YJ Park, Grant Forsyth, Guillermo Carey C.,
> >                         Miriam Sapiro(On behalf of Roger Cochetti).
> >
> > 4. Timeframe of NC Task Force
> >
> > March 11, 2001
> > NC Interim Committee on IDN formed.
> >
> > June 2, 2001
> > Status Report(1) of NC Interim Committee on IDN
> > Formal Recognition on IDN NC Task Force
> >
> > September, 2001
> > Status Report(2) on various IDN Survey Result
> > Formal Recognition on Consultation process
> >
> > November, 2001
> > Status Report(3) on Consultation Process
> >
> > February, 2002
> > Status Report(4) on On-going Consultation Process
> >
> > June, 2002
> > Final Report(5) to the NC
> >
> > NC will decide whether it will send its Final Report to the
> > Board or to form Working Group in the DNSO.
> >
> > 5. Reference
> >
> > NC Business Plan Document circulated during
> > Melbourne meeting.
> >
> > 6. Remark
> > As was noted since its formation on March 16th to the
> > relevant groups in the ICANN process, ICANN Board
> > IDN WG, GAC IDN WG, RAC's WG and NC's WG, there
> > have been strong needs to work very closely among those
> > four groups for better coordination.
> >
> > 7. Action Plan:
> >
> > In Stockholm meeting, those who have been working on
> > the same issue, IDN, are recommended to have an informal
> > meeting in order to produce more effective and fruitful outcome.
> >