RE: [ccnso-idncctld] Final draft Final Report IDNC WG
All, There seems to be formatting error with the document. All the text is present. Attached is a reformatted word document and a pdf. Cheers, 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. _____ From: owner-ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bart Boswinkel Sent: Tuesday, 24 June 2008 17:54 To: Bart Boswinkel; ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [ccnso-idncctld] Final draft Final Report IDNC WG Dear all, It seems some of you have not received the documents or there is a page missing. I've checked this version (again) and there seems to be no problem at my end. I'll send a clean version in a second email, Bart On 6/24/08 1:14 AM, "Bart Boswinkel" <bart.boswinkel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: Dear all, Included is the final draft (with track changes and clean). This draft is the final draft. It is for discussion by the GAC and the ccNSO. I suggest that the IDNC WG will meet on Thursday morning at 8 am to have its final meeting to endorse the Final Report. I'll send out a final version for approval by the IDNC WG Wednesday evening. This version is for submission to the Board on Thursday. I'll also arrange a room for the meeting and let you know where the meeting can take place. Changes: This version includes some changes to wording as suggested by Bertrand. It does not include his suggested change of the re-evaluation recommendation. Reason is that in some cases the delegation process can take quite some time. It also does not include include his suggested change of " evaluated candidate string" as this would introduce a new concept. In accordance with the suggestion of Cary the description of non-Latin is changed. In order to avoid confusion with existing ccTLD,, for example the .PY issue ( the homographic issue), one more technical requirement has been added. Also included is a new statement that the technical criteria may need to be updated to comply with the IDNA 2008 protocol, when the review of IDNA protocol is concluded.This update is considered to be a matter of implementation. Finally, next to UNESCO, the ICC and the WTO are included as examples of entities that could authenticate the meaning of the selected string. This report will be published on the ICANN website and forwarded to the GAC and the ccNSO. Kind regards, Bart Attachment:
final draft final report _redline_.pdf Attachment:
final draft final report (redline) .doc
|