RE: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report

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

Tim's wording seems pretty good to me.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 10:06 AM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report
> 
> 
> Thanks Mike. Regarding the first part, I think the following 
> comes closer to capturing my concerns:
> 
> There may be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry 
> per relevant script per relevant language, but in any event 
> no more than one fasttrack IDN per relevant language. 
> 
> That allows the broader concept for the overall ccNSO PDP but 
> keeps it somewhat narrower for the fasttrack.
>  
> Tim 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report
> From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, August 07, 2008 8:29 am
> To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> Answering my own email with some suggested language, picking 
> up on a suggestion Chuck made, and trying to define 
> 'relevant' as Robin and I had
> suggested:
> 
> There may be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry 
> per relevant language, except that in countries where 
> relevant languages are rendered in more than one script, 
> there may be one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per 
> relevant script per relevant language. "Relevant" languages 
> are defined as Official languages, or in nations where there 
> are no Official languages, languages used by more than ten 
> percent (10%) of the nation's population.
> 
> I suspect the 10% rule may not work for some, but let's start 
> the discussion to get this more narrowly tailored.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mike
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 5:04 AM
> To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I have a question on this new reco of the WG: There should be 
> only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant 
> script per relevant language.
> 
> Does this mean that the USA, for example, can have .us IDN 
> strings in every script of every language used by a 
> significant number of people in the US?
> If 'relevant' is not defined as 'significant number of 
> users', then how?
> Is
> it conceivable that this could be more carefully drafted to 
> consider the specific Indian concern, but not allow such a 
> broad swath of IDN ccTLDs for every country?
> 
> Thanks,
> Mike
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On
> Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 1:56 PM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report
> 
> 
> hi,
> 
> Again thanks to Edmon for getting the report in time for this meeting
> - especially as we need to submit our response before the 15 
> Aug deadline.
> 
> As there has not been any discussion on the list about this 
> response yet, I wanted to make sure people had seen this item.
> 
> 
> On 31 Jul 2008, at 12:49, Edmon Chung wrote:
> 
> >
> > Then finally we also added a paragraph to revise one of the points 
> > in our
> > previous statement in response to strong objection by the Indian 
> > delegate
> > during our meeting with the GAC in Paris. The paragraph was 
> > specifically
> > tagged for council review because it is a revision of a 
> statement we 
> > had put
> > out earlier and the particular point was discussed at length.
> >
> > Anyway, for your quick reference, the suggested revised 
> statement is 
> > as
> > follows:
> >
> >> There should be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per 
> >> relevant
> >> script per relevant language.
> >
> 
> 
> I will be proposing that we agree to send this response in by the 
> deadline of 15 August. So if you believe there are any edits 
> necessary, please send them to the list for discussion as soon as 
> possible. Except for this one item, the rest of the response is 
> believed to be in keeping with the previous responses and positions 
> taken over the last months.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>