ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

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

[council] better text re IDN ccTLDs?

  • To: "GNSO Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] better text re IDN ccTLDs?
  • From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <mxrodenbaugh@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 10:36:05 -0700
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:Thread-Index:Content-Language; b=U1Osw1IlY20sb4NpA2K9oxaQwT6ziUWM1brVauMvqRj/+8/zToNDQg2JrteR24OVwPZ0x3tziNALM3hrv+7xo9lP0aIc1LwIln9JAjRUTOPzsOcks9KklRpvYMp59k3IZss3zz/twDz4QGVRre10s5ezPsHtcrW45R7YQ+vecrg= ;
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcgYv8lFl4ODbaQMSc+fhkjbEWU9Rw==
I would prefer to delete no. 4 altogether, as inconsistent with 8.  But I
see Edmon's point about secondary meaning, and we should try to prevent any
unfair advantage in that regard - so, how does this language work instead?

 

If any IDN ccTLDs are proposed that are perceived by a substantial community
outside of the territory, as relating to something other than the name of
the ccTLD territory, then the technical, financial, and operational
requirements should be similar to those for an IDN gTLD to ensure there is
no unfair advantage.

 

Also, in no. 8, I think the verb should be 'must' rather than 'should', in
two places.

 

Same with no. 10, verb should be must.  Also should clarify 'confusingly
similar to any existing TLD' to make consistent with our newTLDs principles.

 

I think we have established the practice of using 'may', 'should' and 'must'
in our various discussions and recommendations, and we should continue that
practice so we keep consistency in our discussions and recommendations.

 

Thanks,

Mike Rodenbaugh
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>