Re: [ccnso-idncctld] Version for discussion by ccNSO
- To: "ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx" <ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [ccnso-idncctld] Version for discussion by ccNSO
- From: HiroHOTTA <hotta@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 03:18:59 +0900
I've reread the document and come up with 2 relatively big
comments. Sorry to post them at this final moment.
I hope I can have your input before ccNSO meeting tomorrow.
<Comment-1> Page 7
Now we have
Requirements relating to the script
For purposes of the Fast Track the term "non-Latin script" is
used to designate any script that does not contain the twenty-six
letters listed in the US-ASCII haracter set (a-z), either in
their basic forms or with combining marks.
Instead of the above, I think we'd better borrow the definition of
"Latin script" from Unicode document (which Cary pointed to) if
it is equivalent to the above definition made by us.
So, my proposed rewording is
For purposes of the Fast Track the term "non-Latin script" is a
script that is not listed as Latin in the table of
<Comment-2> Page 10
Step 1. Submission of language table into IANA Repository
Currently, IANA accepts the submission of a language table only from
the Administrative Contact associated with a TLD registry. This
means that language tables in IANA Repository are intended to be the
ones that delegated TLD registries really use. I support this
stance. So, I'd like to propose the title and the content of
Step 1 amended such that submission is not made into IANA Repository
but just into ICANN.
Proposed rewording is
Step 1. Submission of language table
Unless the selected delegate indicates it intends to use a
language/script table for the official language that is already in
the IANA Repository, the intended language/script table must be
submitted (to ICANN).
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:37:28 -0700
Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear all,
> Based on todays discussion of the document with GAC, two suggested changes
> have been made to the document:
> All references to the names of entities who could authenticate the string
> means what is suggested to mean, has been removed ( UNESCO, ICC and WTO).
> The reference to ICP-1 has bee removed.
> The version for discussion by the ccNSO is published on the ICANN website: