RE: [gnso-idn-wg] GNSO IDN WG, Final Outcomes Report, draft for quickfeedback - 4.2.9
Avri, Marilyn, Subbiah and all On the earlier 4.2.9 now 4.2.8, I did not modify the drafting further. There are certainly plenty of considerations and limitations to take into account and to single out technical ones seems a bit narrow. Also, I did not introduce "not to penalize" - I tried to rephrase this double negation into a positive statement, ended up with "in a positive way" and realized that this would be superfluous; in the context "consider" and "consider in a positive way" are synonymous. Best regards Olof -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 12:30 PM To: marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx Cc: Olof Nordling; gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [gnso-idn-wg] GNSO IDN WG, Final Outcomes Report, draft for quickfeedback - 4.2.9 hi, On 22 mar 2007, at 07.27, 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? That sounds like a good idea, as long as we include a statement that things are only technical limitations after they have been proven to be technical limitations. And that that is done through testing or other verifiable engineering means. I think we also should be clear that things that are still at the stage of internet-draft are not yet cast in stone and are in fact still just suggested solutions. a.