Participants:
Ming-Cheng Liang, .tw (Chair)
Ian Chiang, .tw
Chris Disspain, .au
Mohammed El Bashir, .sd
Min-Jung Park .kr
Jonathan Shea, .hk
Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat
Updates were given from the IDN WG�s three Sub-Working Groups (Second Level Domains Working Group, Top-Level ccTLDs Working Group, Cross-over issues Working Group)
1) Second Level Domain Working Group
Jonathan reported that he had done some initial research, but found it hard to come up with any major global policy issues which would apply for second level issues.
It was suggested that some thought could be given to situations where, for instance, a country wants to adopt a foreign script and what possible policy issues may arise in that circumstance (such as which language table should be followed, or whether special words, such as country names, should be reserved in the foreign script).
It was discussed whether this was a subject which should rather be decided upon locally, but it was felt that it would be good to give the internet community the possibility to decide on the matter, at least from a best practice point of view. The group could, however, give recommendations.
2) Top-Level ccTLDs Working Group
Ming-Cheng gave an update from the discussion he had with the GAC group. The group had suggested that the ccNSO should try to keep up pace with the GNSO group on IDN work, as they seemed to be much further than the ccTLDs.
It was clarified that gTLDs were pushed to publish their new gTLD policy, which includes IDN issues, as soon as possible and had therefore come further on this matter. The ccNSO doesn�t have this pressure and can therefore work in a slower pace.
The GAC had also recognised that there are common areas that need to be worked on jointly, primarily questions on reserved names list and language tables.
Another suggestion from the GAC was to have all IDN WG Chairs on the various IDN email lists.
Some concern was shown that this might lead to a too large group, which may become unmanageable, but it was suggested that all working groups should have internal discussions whether this is a good idea, or not. Donna and Gabi were to find out in the meantime what existing Working Groups there are across the GAC and the gNSO. The IDN WG will be notified as soon as this information has been gathered.
It was discussed how to develop the cooperation with the GAC on IDN issues. It was felt that the differences in the working methods of the two groups was major, and that it may, for efficiency reasons be sensible to make the GAC suggest a way forward, This should, however, be guided by the ccNSO, to make sure it would cover issues that really matter to ccTLDs. Chris�s email to the joint ccNSO-GAC IDN list was a starting point; another idea was to speak to GAC representatives which ccNSO members may know from their own countries.
3) Cross-over Issues
Min-Jung reported that the group had not yet held any discussions.
Chris updated that the GNSO has a Working Group dealing with Reserved Names issues. From a ccNSO perspective, it is a cross-over issue, as the gTLDs would not want ccTLDs to allow generic TLDs to be registered in foreign languages, and ccTLDs would want to make sure there is no possibility for gTLD operators to apply for a gTLD that is a representation of a country name in any foreign language.
Min-Jung was appointed to be an observer to the GNSO Reserved Names Working Group. William Tan is on that group as well, however in his capacity of a GNSO representative. It was therefore felt the ccNSO should have an observer, purely representing cc�s on the group. Min-Jung will be added to the appropriate email list and will report back to the Working Group on issues of interest.
Moving Forward
Chris suggested that the Second Level Group and the Cross-over Issues Group should work on a list of issues that need to be discussed, similar to the one he had sent out to the joint GAC/ccNSO IDN Working Group. The lists would create a starting point to work on the most crucial issues. He recognised that the second level group rather would have to work on issues of logistical character, than global policy issues. The list made by the Cross-Over Group should, however, contain suggestions and ideas on points which may be overlapping. The ccNSO policy should aim at covering reservations of cc names, which cc�s wouldn�t like to be covered by gTLDs.
Each working group should also discuss and make a list on what representation they think would be good to have from other WG�s (GAC, gNSO, At-large) on their list. This also includes any possible sub-groups from the supporting organisations.
It was further suggested that each sub-Working Group gets a time slot during the ccNSO session in Lisbon where it presents the issues that have arisen within the group. Each group should appoint a person in charge giving a presentation on these issues. This person doesn�t necessarily have to be physically present at the meeting.
The chairs of all the various working groups � including the GAC and gNSO groups - should also meet in Lisbon to map out joint issues that should be worked on.
It was finally suggested to schedule more regular telephone conferences, such as once a week, to get work done before the Lisbon meeting.