RE: [ccnso-idncctld] Suggested Edits for Principle C

["Chris Disspain" <ceo@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

Having thought this through, I think that Edmon's change to the title
doesn't work because it changes the requirement to be 'ready to use'. This
is not acceptable. We cannot make the ccTLD use it.

We should return to the original title.

Chris Disspain
CEO - auDA 
Australia's Domain Name Administrator
ceo@xxxxxxxxxxx
www.auda.org.au
 

Important Notice - This email may contain information which is
confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the
use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient,
you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have
received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this
message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this
email.

 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung
> Sent: Sunday, 22 June 2008 02:07
> To: ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [ccnso-idncctld] Suggested Edits for Principle C
> 
> 
> Hi Everyone,
> 
> Suggested wording change for Principle C:
> 
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ---------------
> 
> C: Territory needs to be ready to use the IDN ccTLD
> 
> The purpose of Fast Track is to meet pressing demand.  This pressing
demand
> should be accompanied with and evidenced by the territory to meet the
> requirements to introduce an IDN ccTLD under the Fast Track. The
territory
> needs to be ready to use the IDN ccTLD and to demonstrate that
readiness.
> 
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ---------------
> 
> 
> As discussed in the meeting today, I think it will be useful to reword
> Principle C.  I am not suggesting any change to the concept,
nevertheless, I
> have received some comments about the problem of the logic of Principle
C as
> described.  More specifically, that it does not follow that "readiness"
is
> an evidence of "pressing demand".
> 
> Nevertheless I do understand the rationale behind the description based
on
> the context of our discussions.
> 
> The edits are suggested to make it more understandable for those reading
> only the report.
> 
> I believe they should be minor changes and do not change the intent of
the
> principle.
> 
> Edmon
> 
>