ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

RE: [ccnso-idncctld] Suggested Edits for Principle C

  • To: "'Edmon Chung'" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [ccnso-idncctld] Suggested Edits for Principle C
  • From: "Chris Disspain" <ceo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:24:44 +1000 (EST)


Thanks. I think the change to the title is fine and should be
non-contentious within the WG.

However, I think your wording of the paragraph itself makes the intent
less clear rather than clearer. May I suggest that we amend the title but
leave the paragraph as is.


Chris Disspain
CEO - auDA 
Australia's Domain Name Administrator

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


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung
> Sent: Sunday, 22 June 2008 02:07
> To: ccnso-idncctld@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [ccnso-idncctld] Suggested Edits for Principle C
> Hi Everyone,
> Suggested wording change for Principle C:
> ---------------
> C: Territory needs to be ready to use the IDN ccTLD
> The purpose of Fast Track is to meet pressing demand.  This pressing
> should be accompanied with and evidenced by the territory to meet the
> requirements to introduce an IDN ccTLD under the Fast Track. The
> needs to be ready to use the IDN ccTLD and to demonstrate that
> ---------------
> As discussed in the meeting today, I think it will be useful to reword
> Principle C.  I am not suggesting any change to the concept,
nevertheless, I
> have received some comments about the problem of the logic of Principle
C as
> described.  More specifically, that it does not follow that "readiness"
> an evidence of "pressing demand".
> Nevertheless I do understand the rationale behind the description based
> the context of our discussions.
> The edits are suggested to make it more understandable for those reading
> only the report.
> I believe they should be minor changes and do not change the intent of
> principle.
> Edmon

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy