Re: [soac-mapo] RE: Initial Draft ToR for Recommendation 6 Implementation Discussion

[Stuart Lawley <stuart@xxxxxxxxxx>]

"without affecting" seems to be ideal.

the IDN version of .ps was only an example. My point was the GAC letter says 
any "pending or future TLd's" and as a literal interpretation would include IDN 
ccTLD's. There is no more room for additional process/additional 
crieria/hurdles/objections in the 2004 sTLD round than there is in the fat 
track IDN rules. These rules are already written and have been used by 
applicants. My point exactly.




On Aug 22, 2010, at 12:57 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> 
> 
> On 21 Aug 2010, at 10:54, Stuart Lawley wrote:
> 
>> I agree with Richard re: universally resolvability as, I believe .IL doesn"t 
>> resolve in many countries such as Syria and UAE.
>> 
>> I am not sure the word "maximizing" is the correct choice of word , but am 
>> presently, at a loss to suggest alternative wording.
> 
> how about "without affecting ..."
> 
>> 
>> Should the working group also make explicitly clear that the ToR refer to 
>> new gTLD's ONLY as the GAC letter of 4th August refers to "pending TLD's" 
>> that could be construed to mean .xxx
> 
> It did appear as if this was targeted in the GAC letter.  Being explicit in 
> the ToR is probably a good idea.
> 
>> and IDN ccTLDs such as the arabic version of the Occupied Territories of 
>> Palestine etc. , which I am sure is viewed as "sensitive" in certain 
>> quarters.
>> 
> 
> Would not apply to an IDN ccTLD as the fast track says that they can only be 
> affected by internal sensitivities - not external sensitivity; it is a 
> sovereignty thing. And I can't imagine that there would be that much protest 
> inside the Territories.  Plus hasn't it already been approved?
> 
> a.