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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The issue at hand is New gTLD Recommendation 6, which in my opinion
restricts the ToR to new gTLDs.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Stuart Lawley
> Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 4:31 AM
> To: Avri Doria
> Cc: soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] RE: Initial Draft ToR for Recommendation 6
> Implementation Discussion
> Importance: High
> 
> 
> "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.
>