Just wanted to clarify that I support the final wording Subbiah came up
with.
Yoav
-----Original Message-----
From: subbiah [mailto:subbiah@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 7:20 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