<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Issue for IDN discussion
- To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] Issue for IDN discussion
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 19:52:10 -0800
- In-reply-to: <00d601c8379d$aed7cab0$0c876010$@org>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <41C2559F-C0D4-40BD-A292-5BB120FA37E6@psg.com> <00d601c8379d$aed7cab0$0c876010$@org>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi,
I guess that is a good question: Is the GNSO council, or the GNSO
itself, supportive of the fast track as it has been laid out in the
charter?
Since the council is currently in the position of picking 2
representatives for the IDNC, we need to determine to what degree
they can support the IDNC's fast track's goals.
a.
On 5 dec 2007, at 16.19, Edmon Chung wrote:
To what extent is there support within the council for the allocation
of at most 1 IDN in 1 Script per 3166-1 based ccTLD by methods chosen
by the IDNC fast track WG, so long as it is clearly understood that
no other allocations may be made until such time as there is a
community wide discussion and agreement of any further re-allocation
of gNSO namespace to the ccNSO?
The question itself may be problematic I think. And is one which
the ccTLDs
themselves are avoiding. I do not think specifying "at most 1 IDN
in 1 Script
per 3166" is a good idea. It may appear that we have not heard
some of the
sensitivities and concerns from the local communities. i.e. I
worry it would
not be seen as supportive for the fast track (which I think is the
original
intent).
I feel that simply indicating that we are supportive of a fast
track concept
given that it is a more contained "experimental" process would be more
appropriate than specifying 1-IDN-1-cc.
Edmon
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|