RE: [ccnso-idncctld] Note on Point E
Not sure if this got to the list earlier... sending again. Edmon From: Edmon Chung [mailto:edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 7:16 PM To: 'ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx' Subject: RE: [ccnso-idncctld] Note on Point E Hi Everyone, Sorry I didn't catch this email from Chris earlier. I feel that the argument put forward is not correct because the current ccTLD practices, including the GAC principles as I read them hinges on a definitive list of strings (i.e. the two-letter codes in the ISO 3166-1) as ccTLDs, whereas the Fast Track IDN ccTLD does not. While the "territories" could be said to be well defined based on the ISO 3166-1 list, the actual IDN ccTLD string is not defined. Therefore, it does not follow that "a limited number of non-contentious IDN ccTLDs" and "Current practices for the delegation of ccTLDs" Could weld together to argue that a Fast Track IDN ccTLD string should be only "non-contentious within the territory". At best you can perhaps argue that the delegation to a Fast Track IDN ccTLD manager must be "non-contentious within the territory" but not the string itself. Edmon From: owner-ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chris Disspain Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 11:11 AM To: ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx Subject: [ccnso-idncctld] Note on Point E All, On our teleconference last week we discussed the above and I said that I would send out a note regarding the wording. This is attached. Cheers, Chris Disspain CEO - auDA Australia's Domain Name Administrator ceo@xxxxxxxxxxx www.auda.org.au Important Notice - This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email.