[gnso-idnc-initial] FW: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung Sent: mercredi 13 août 2008 12:36 To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report Apologies for the delays for turning this document around. Please find attached the updated document. I have adopted the suggested edits by Tim. On the other point, regarding financial consideration / cost-recovery issue, I did not see any suggestion from Tim, so I have added the following to the final sentence of the final paragraph: "and the consideration of cost and cost recovery principle of ICANN processes, will be paramount for the success of the Fast Track IDN ccTLD process." Hope this works for everyone. Edmon PS. Avri, please take it from here. Upon finalization, I am happy to help post it to the public comments. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh > Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 9:23 AM > To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Tim Ruiz'; 'Council GNSO' > Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report > > > I think this would more narrowly proscribe IDN ccTLDs than I think is > necessary, but does provide impetus to end the fast track asap and get > the full policy developed. It then remains an issue we must continue > to monitor > in that ccPDP. So I'm OK with it, too, but could be more flexible if > needed. We at least need to make sure the current language changes, > as it is too open-ended and vague. > > -Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck > Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 7:29 AM > To: Tim Ruiz; Council GNSO > Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report > > > Tim's wording seems pretty good to me. > > Chuck > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz > > Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 10:06 AM > > To: Council GNSO > > Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report > > > > > > Thanks Mike. Regarding the first part, I think the following comes > > closer to capturing my concerns: > > > > There may be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per > > relevant script per relevant language, but in any event no more than > > one fasttrack IDN per relevant language. > > > > That allows the broader concept for the overall ccNSO PDP but keeps > > it somewhat narrower for the fasttrack. > > > > Tim > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report > > From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Thu, August 07, 2008 8:29 am > > To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Answering my own email with some suggested language, picking up on a > > suggestion Chuck made, and trying to define 'relevant' as Robin and > > I had > > suggested: > > > > There may be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per > > relevant language, except that in countries where relevant languages > > are rendered in more than one script, there may be one IDN ccTLD > > string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant script per relevant > > language. "Relevant" languages are defined as Official languages, or > > in nations where there are no Official languages, languages used by > > more than ten percent (10%) of the nation's population. > > > > I suspect the 10% rule may not work for some, but let's start the > > discussion to get this more narrowly tailored. > > > > Thanks, > > Mike > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 5:04 AM > > To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report > > > > Hi all, > > > > I have a question on this new reco of the WG: There should be only > > one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant script per > > relevant language. > > > > Does this mean that the USA, for example, can have .us IDN strings > > in every script of every language used by a significant number of > > people in the US? > > If 'relevant' is not defined as 'significant number of users', then > > how? > > Is > > it conceivable that this could be more carefully drafted to consider > > the specific Indian concern, but not allow such a broad swath of IDN > > ccTLDs for every country? > > > > Thanks, > > Mike > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > On > > Behalf Of Avri Doria > > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 1:56 PM > > To: Council GNSO > > Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report > > > > > > hi, > > > > Again thanks to Edmon for getting the report in time for this > > meeting > > - especially as we need to submit our response before the 15 Aug > > deadline. > > > > As there has not been any discussion on the list about this response > > yet, I wanted to make sure people had seen this item. > > > > > > On 31 Jul 2008, at 12:49, Edmon Chung wrote: > > > > > > > > Then finally we also added a paragraph to revise one of the points > > > in our previous statement in response to strong objection by the > > > Indian delegate during our meeting with the GAC in Paris. The > > > paragraph was specifically tagged for council review because it is > > > a revision of a > > statement we > > > had put > > > out earlier and the particular point was discussed at length. > > > > > > Anyway, for your quick reference, the suggested revised > > statement is > > > as > > > follows: > > > > > >> There should be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry > > >> per relevant script per relevant language. > > > > > > > > > I will be proposing that we agree to send this response in by the > > deadline of 15 August. So if you believe there are any edits > > necessary, please send them to the list for discussion as soon as > > possible. Except for this one item, the rest of the response is > > believed to be in keeping with the previous responses and positions > > taken over the last months. > > > > Thanks. > > > > a. > > > > > > > > > > Attachment:
GNSO-Comments-IDNCFinalReport--2008-08-12.doc |