RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] The list of "temporarily reserved strings"
That can explain the Danish/Norwegian and Japanese being missing from the AG. It does not address whether we are protecting 4 or 8 strings in Arabic, and if 4, which 4.
Alan At 08/11/2012 11:49 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
I think what you will hear is that when the Board created the list, they did so based on letters that they received from the IOC prior to the Singapore meeting. Although the IOC and RCRC indicated that the lists were illustrative and were not the complete lists, ICANN limited the list to what had been previously submitted. Between the Singapore resolution and September 14th, 2011 (when the GAC released its proposal), the IOC and RCRC consulted with the GAC to provide a more comprehensive list. That more comprehensive list was not incorporated into the Guidebook, but was in fact included in the GAC proposal.Hope that helps explain the differences. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs -----Original Message-----From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, ChuckSent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 11:06 AM To: Alan Greenberg; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] The list of "temporarily reserved strings"Thanks Alan. I think it would be helpful to find out from ICANN staff why the AG varies from the GAC request.Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc- > dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg > Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 11:30 PM > To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] The list of "temporarily reserved strings" > > > During the meetingtoday, the issue came up whether we should be using > the list published in the AG, or in the September 2011 GAC letter to > the GNSO. > > I did a quick review of them. > > Red Cross: The GAC list includes Danish/Norwegian and Japanese that > are not in the AG. > > IOC: The lists are almost identical, except to my untrained eye (as > well as Google Translate), the Arabic version in the two documents > seem quite different. > > Alan