<<<
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: "Yoav Keren" <yoav@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 08:53:37 +0200
This sounds reasonable for me too. I support it.
________________________________
From: owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Sophia B
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 3:11 AM
To: gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx; GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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
>>>
|