ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[gnso-sl-wg] RE: Updated Single and Two Character Labels Subgroup Report

  • To: "Patrick Jones" <patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-sl-wg] RE: Updated Single and Two Character Labels Subgroup Report
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:02:59 -0400

Great work Patrick.  Your are working awfully late.
Note that I didn't do much content review except in the Executive
Summary. I mainly tried to look at overall format and structure with the
specific purpose of providing feedback in that regard.  I have a few
Executive Summary, Section 1

        As important as the 'definition of character' is in the report,
it seems to me that it should not be included in your list of
subcategories in the 2nd paragraph.  There will be specific
recommendations regarding reserved names for all of the other
categories; I don't think there will be for the 'definition of
character' although you will be providing that definition, which is
critical to your recommendations.  And you might want to change your
lead-in sentence to something like the following: "Recommendations are
provided for each of the following eight subcategories."  I note that
you later do provide a recommendation for the definition of character;
if we present that as a recommendation, then maybe my reasoning is
wrong, but my inclination would be to provide a definition of character
and not provide a recommendation for a definition.  The work on the
definition has been quite extensive and I personally think that the
subgroup should feel confident about providing a definition; obviously,
people could disagree with the definition, but the rest of your work
hinges on the definition you choose.  If the subgroup agrees with my
line of reasoning, then I think the definition of character should go in
the definitions table.
        The last sentence in paragraph 4 says, "Subsequently, the
category of Geographical and Geopolitical names was added to the
'standard appendix for reserved names,' beginning with .INFO."  I think
this should be reworded because a reader could conclude from this that
the Geographical and Geopolitical names was added to the standard
appendix for all gTLDs.  Also, they could also easily conclude that it
is still in the .info appendix and it is not.  I think there are at
least of couple ways of handling this: 1) the sentence could be deleted;
2) it could be changed to say, "Subsequently, the category of
Geographical and Geopolitical names was added to the some of the
reserved name appendices.".

Supporting Information

        I understand the struggles you had in using the template for
your category with so many subcategories. I can think of a couple ways
to handle this.  One way would be to create a separate report for each
subcategory; I don't believe this is the best way to go because some of
the information in the report applies to all or some subset of the
subcategories and would therefore need to be duplicated in each separate
report but, if the subgroup wants to go that way, that is fine.  A
second way is to do what I suggest in the following bullets.
        Reinsert the 'Supporting Information' heading at the beginning
of the section following the recommendations table.
        Maintain the template sections in the 'Supporting Information'
section as provided, with only subsection 1 (background), one subsection
2 (rationale), etc.
        Within each of the four subsections, create one more lower level
of subsections for the recommendations; it would look like the

Supporting Information
1. Background
(You could insert background information that covers all the
recommendations here.)
1.1 Recommendation One
(Insert background info for recommendation one)
1.2 Recommendation two
(Insert background info for recommendation two)
2. Rationale for the Recommendations
(Insert general info if any.)
2.1 Recommendation One
If you have other ideas, feel free to communicate them.  I think the
approach above maintains the consistency of the template format while at
the same time accommodates the situation where there are many
recommendations.  If you are okay with this approach, please let me
know, because I think it would be helpful if I communicate this approach
to all subgroups.
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." 


        From: Patrick Jones [mailto:patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 12:43 AM
        To: gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Cc: 'Tina Dam'; ck@xxxxxxxxxx; Gomes, Chuck; 'Liz Williams'
        Subject: Updated Single and Two Character Labels Subgroup Report

        As discussed earlier in the week, I have attached an updated
single and two character labels subgroup report. I ran into problems
with the latest template, so it remains a bit of a hybrid, but I wanted
to make sure that an update went out to the subgroup that included
materials on the definition of character and single and two character
IDNs. I plan to add to the IDN section tomorrow morning.


        I want to thank Tina and Cary for their input and editing to my
initial drafting on the definition of character over the past two weeks.
The section is the result of inquiries to Michael Everson and Cary as
experts and substantial guidance and suggestions from Cary and Tina. I
think the definition should provide assistance to the new gTLD process.


        I have updated the definitions table and the recommendations
table (although this may still need some tweaking). The recommendation
sections, except for definition of character and single and two
character IDNs, are essential the same as the previous draft (which was
a cut & paste from the 19 March 2007 RN WG Report). I have added back in
the section on symbols, based on Chuck's instructions from yesterday's
full WG call.


        I still need to update the sections with references to the GAC
Principles on New gTLDs and where relevant, the IDN WG Outcomes Report.
I'll complete that tomorrow. I can't look at this anymore tonight.


        If you want to update sections, or if I have left out new
material, please let me know.


        Also let me know if you have questions. I'll be online again in
the morning.




        Patrick L. Jones

        Registry Liaison Manager

        Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

        4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330

        Marina del Rey, CA 90292

        Tel: +1 310 301 3861

        Fax: +1 310 823 8649



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy