Re: [gnso-idn-wg] GNSO IDN WG, Final Outcomes Report, draft for quickfeedback - 4.2.9

[subbiah <subbiah@xxxxxxxxx>]

Marilyn

I think on the call it was generally accepted that when pre-exixting 
deployments are considerd and if ICANN after deliberations were to 
accept, then the pre-existing folks should and must adopt ICANN IDNA and 
other technicall and policies going forward.
Just like for example everyone switched from RACE to punycode when IETF 
changed the format yeasr ago- even Verisign with its IDN testbed 
eventually did.

Cheers

Subbiah



marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> At the risk of reopening this issue, don't we need to take technological limitations into account as well? Is there a 'chapeau statement needed in the principles that acknowledges that issue?
> Regards,
> Marilyn Cade
>  
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: subbiah <subbiah@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:51:45 
> To:olof nordling <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc:gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-idn-wg] GNSO IDN WG, Final Outcomes Report, draft for quick
> feedback - 4.2.9
>
> Olof, All
>
> Based on the last round of emails I had thought there had been some 
> agreement to modify 4.2.9 as it stands in your document a little further.
>
> ************************************************************current 
> draft version
>
> *4.2.9*
>
> *Support* for the view to consider input from local/regional 
> pre-existing developments regarding IDN at the top-level, for example 
> the experimental IDN systems supported by the Arab league and other 
> countries, when considering introduction of new IDN gTLDs.
>
> *********************************************************
>
> There was  I belive little dissent to the clause "  and  not to  
> penalise  pre-existing developments", and the inclusion of "teh Chinese 
> community" as an example. Given that there  was  Avri's dissent to the 
> extra clause "to avoid  confusion/potential backlash", we could be safe 
> and drpop that clause.
>
> So I would have thought the following final statement had hardly any 
> dissent and general agreement.
>
> *******************
> 4.2.9*
>
> *Support* for the view to consider input from, and not to penalise, 
> local/regional pre-existing developments regarding IDN at the top-level, 
> for example the experimental IDN systems supported by the Arab league, 
> the Chinese community and other countries, when considering introduction 
> of new IDN gTLDs.
>
>
> ******************
>
> Cheers
>
> Subbiah
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> olof nordling wrote:
>
>  
>
> > Dear all,
> > At long last, here is the final report in draft, after reformatting it in
> > sections by agreements and support, respectively (approach courtesy of our
> > eminent chair Ram).
> > Please read it carefully - not the least because the numbering has changed
> > completely - and provide any comments to the full list.
> > And now, the hard part, we are on a very tight timeline and this is already
> > late, so please respond within 12 hours from now, meaning 
> >
> > deadline by 10 AM UTC 22 March. 
> >
> > I hope the GNSO Council will show some indulgence with the implied delay -
> > we were supposed to provide the report no later than 21 March - but they
> > certainly do need the report in time for reading prior to the ICANN Lisbon
> > meeting. So I ask for your indulgence in keeping to this deadline.
> > Very best regards
> > Olof
> >
> >
> >
> >    
>
>
>
>  



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.413 / Virus Database: 268.18.15/728 - Release Date: 3/20/2007