RE: [gnso-idn-wg] Addition to Section 4.2.1

["Ram Mohan" <rmohan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Subbiah,
Understood.  Thanks.

-Ram


-----Original Message-----
From: subbiah [mailto:subbiah@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 1:20 PM
To: rmohan@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Charles Shaban'; 'Yoav Keren'; gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-idn-wg] Addition to Section 4.2.1

I was merely trying to reach consenus, if possible.

First there already was a support statement pretty close to what i 
suggest below. I was merely saying that with the small and relatively 
minor additions to that original there is probably sufficient support 
for the somewhat amended form. Nowhere did I suggest an Alteranative 
View/ Support be presented if there was enough for that in addition. And 
this has been the form we have followed all along, I think.

I see no inconsistency with what I thought I was suggesting, and what 
you say below and what we have been doing all along.

I am just trying to get something more of us could agree on and you did 
ask me to put my suggstion in writing at the end of the call. Apologies 
for any misunderstanding.

Subbiah


Ram Mohan wrote:

>Folks
>Let's not get hasty about counting support and "non-support".  If you do,
>then I will need to start distinguishing between support and oppose between
>voting members and observers, and I am sure that will make some of you
>unhappy.
>
>By the way, it is not "non-support", it is "oppose".  And, we don't do
>"oppose" views in our report, we merely will add a separate Support
>statement, which is consistent with what we've done elsewhere.
>
>We have not been tabulating support for each item, and we will not start
now
>for any single issue.
>
>Regards,
>Ram
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Ram Mohan
>e: rmohan@xxxxxxxxxxxx | m: +1.215.431.0958
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: subbiah [mailto:subbiah@xxxxxxxxx] 
>Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 11:06 AM
>To: Charles Shaban
>Cc: rmohan@xxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Yoav Keren'; gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [gnso-idn-wg] Addition to Section 4.2.1
>
>
>
>Apologies to Charles. He is indeed right, in a previous version he had 
>already asked for that minor change which is also more accurate.
>
>Also in my email - potentail non-support was 3 not 4 and that for a 
>stronger version. For this version it may even be less, while support is 
>at 10 or more folks, by my estimation below.
>
>
>Charles Shaban wrote:
>
>
>  
>
>>Just to be showing the facts, change run to supported please:
>>
>>subbiah <subbiah@xxxxxxxxx> on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 4:46 PM
>>+0000 wrote:
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Support for considering and not penalising any pioneering,
>>>pre-existing 
>>>developments regarding IDN gTLDs with widespread language community 
>>>support, for example, the experimental IDN system run 
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>supported 
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>by the Arab 
>>>League, China and other countries in a smaller scale when
>>>considering 
>>>introduction of new IDN gTLDs, to avoid potential confusion/backlash.
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>  
>



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.413 / Virus Database: 268.18.15/728 - Release Date: 3/20/2007