<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-idn-wg] 4.3.2
- To: "Sophia B" <sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-idn-wg] 4.3.2
- From: "Alexei Sozonov" <sozon@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 19:38:42 -0800
I support that... Same condition for everybody that is agreed to by gTLDs and
ICANN... it's a good fare idea.
Alexei
----- Original Message -----
From: Sophia B
To: gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx ; GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 5:11 PM
Subject: [gnso-idn-wg] 4.3.2
4.3.2
I though this minor change of adding a clause to this alternative view would
allow both flexability for the gTLDs operators while reducing any possible
confusion.
Alternative view; to afford latitude for gTLDs to set policy for IDN SLDs on
condition that any selected policy that is uniform for all concerned gTLDs and
that such a policy is approved by ICANN before hand.
Sophia
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|