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

["Olof Nordling" <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>]

Avri, Marilyn, Subbiah and all
On the earlier 4.2.9 now 4.2.8, I did not modify the drafting further. There
are certainly plenty of considerations and limitations to take into account
and to single out technical ones seems a bit narrow. Also, I did not
introduce "not to penalize" - I tried to rephrase this double negation into
a positive statement, ended up with "in a positive way" and realized that
this would be superfluous; in the context "consider" and "consider in a
positive way" are synonymous.
Best regards
Olof  

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 12:30 PM
To: marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Olof Nordling; gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-idn-wg] GNSO IDN WG, Final Outcomes Report, draft for
quickfeedback - 4.2.9

hi,

On 22 mar 2007, at 07.27, marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> 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?

That sounds like a good idea, as long as we include a statement that  
things are only technical limitations after they have been proven to  
be technical limitations. And that that is done through testing or  
other verifiable engineering means.  I think we also should be clear  
that things that are still at the stage of internet-draft are not yet  
cast in stone and are in fact still just suggested solutions.

a.