Re: [gnso-idn-wg] GNSO IDN WG, Final Outcomes Report, draft for quickfeedback - 4.2.9

[marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx]

At the risk of reopening this issue, don't we need to take technological 
limitations into account as well? Is there a 'chapeau statement needed in the 
principles that acknowledges that issue?
Regards,
Marilyn Cade
  

-----Original Message-----
From: subbiah <subbiah@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:51:45 
To:olof nordling <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc:gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-idn-wg] GNSO IDN WG, Final Outcomes Report, draft for quick
 feedback - 4.2.9

Olof, All

Based on the last round of emails I had thought there had been some 
agreement to modify 4.2.9 as it stands in your document a little further.

************************************************************current 
draft version

*4.2.9*

*Support* for the view to consider input from local/regional 
pre-existing developments regarding IDN at the top-level, for example 
the experimental IDN systems supported by the Arab league and other 
countries, when considering introduction of new IDN gTLDs.

*********************************************************

There was  I belive little dissent to the clause "  and  not to  
penalise  pre-existing developments", and the inclusion of "teh Chinese 
community" as an example. Given that there  was  Avri's dissent to the 
extra clause "to avoid  confusion/potential backlash", we could be safe 
and drpop that clause.

So I would have thought the following final statement had hardly any 
dissent and general agreement.

*******************
4.2.9*

*Support* for the view to consider input from, and not to penalise, 
local/regional pre-existing developments regarding IDN at the top-level, 
for example the experimental IDN systems supported by the Arab league, 
the Chinese community and other countries, when considering introduction 
of new IDN gTLDs.


******************

Cheers

Subbiah



 












olof nordling wrote:

>Dear all,
>At long last, here is the final report in draft, after reformatting it in
>sections by agreements and support, respectively (approach courtesy of our
>eminent chair Ram).
>Please read it carefully - not the least because the numbering has changed
>completely - and provide any comments to the full list.
>And now, the hard part, we are on a very tight timeline and this is already
>late, so please respond within 12 hours from now, meaning 
>
>deadline by 10 AM UTC 22 March. 
>
>I hope the GNSO Council will show some indulgence with the implied delay -
>we were supposed to provide the report no later than 21 March - but they
>certainly do need the report in time for reading prior to the ICANN Lisbon
>meeting. So I ask for your indulgence in keeping to this deadline.
>Very best regards
>Olof
> 
>  
>



-- 
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