<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Draft - Appeal to Board relating to IDNC WG
Hi,
Thank you very much for your superb proof reading and for all the many
edits.
Comments in line. I will send out another version later tonight so
that I have time to capture any other comments and corrections that
people might have.
On 19 dec 2007, at 17.13, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks Avri. This was very well written. I compliment the group in
getting this down in writing.
In case we do decide to send this document, here are a few minor edits
and some other suggested changes that I think are nonmaterial in terms
of the content plus a few observations and questions.
I think it would be helpful to do a global change of "Council" to
"GNSO
Council" just to make it clear which Council we are talking about
because the ccNSO has a Council as well.
done
1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: change "limited number of IDN TLD
representing territories" to "limited number of IDN TLDs representing
territories".
done
End of 2nd paragraph: I suggest we change 'IDN ccTLDs' to 'IDN TLDs
associated with ISO 3166-1 country codes' with a footnote that says
something like, "Throughout the rest of this document we use the term
'IDN ccTLDs' because that is the term used by the Board, the ccNSO and
the GAC." The rationale for this change is to recognize that IDN TLDs
are not really ccTLDs until such time as a decision is made to
apportion
the IDN TLDs to the ccNSO, thereby being consistent with our
argument in
the text that follows.
done
Under 'Basis for allocating TLDs to the GTLD and ccTLD name spaces',
2nd
paragraph, 3rd sentence: change 'IDN ccTLD' to 'IDN ccTLDs'.
done
In the same section, 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence: I would put 'Among
most in the GNSO' in brackets until such time that we establish that
is
the case and also suggest that we may want to say 'Among most on the
GNSO Council' unless we plan to involve the broader GNSO in making
this
determination.
Don. I would be interested in knowing if:
a. most GNSO council member do support this statement
b. council members want to go for constituency review of this note so
that we can say GNSO instead of GSNO council.
In the meantime I think that council members can take this memo to
their constituencies for discussion.
The same sentence says, "the assumption is still that all TLDs, except
for .mil, .edu, and the ISO3166-1 defined ccTLDs remain within the
remit
of the GNSO." Shouldn't we also include .int, .arpa and .gov?
but of course.
done
The last sentence of the same paragraph reads, "The conclusions of
such
a process should also be permit, and may also require, a
redefinition of
the ccNSO and GNSO remits as they are currently defined." First, I
think the word 'be' should be deleted.
done
Second, where is the definition
of the GNSO name space currently defined? I understand that some
assume
the definition in this document, but what is that assumption based on?
If it is not defined anywhere other than in people's memory, we may
want
to say, "a definition of the ccNSO and GNSO name spaces."
While I have not found a single primary source that says this, is it
really beyond doubt that this was the intent in the split of DNSO
between the GNSO and the ccNSO.
If we doubt this basic principle, one that was behind all of our work
in the new gTLD PDP, perhaps we should not be appealing the charter as
it stands.
Personally I have no doubt that this is the de-facto definition and
that there is no mention anywhere of another defntion. the entire
notion that there may be another way to look at it is new invention
as far as I can tell.
For now I will put 'the' and 'a' in in brackets, i.e [the, a] nd am
inersted in hearing others on this topic.
Footnote 2: I believe "It should noted that the recommends . . "
should
say, "It should noted that the recommendations . . "
I have dropped the footnote. While I remember that we spoke of such a
recommendation to the staff relating the notification of the GAC of
any geographical names that were applied for, I find so such specific
mention in our final document. It is still a good idea in my opinion,
and I hope the staff does so, but we cannot claim to have said so in
our document. unless of course I am missing it and someone else can
point it out to me.
The last paragraph, last sentence of the same paragraph says, "Until
such time as the ICANN community at large has decided on the proper
apportionment of the IDN TLD name space for the ccNSO's remit, any
fast-track method must be developed with balanced participation from
the
GNSO, along with the ccNSO and GAC." As I said to you elsewhere, I
personally think that many will perceive 'balanced participation' to
mean 'equal numbers'. My understanding is that that is not what is
intended here; if not, I suggest we make that clear. I do not think
that we necessarily need equal numbers, but I do believe that any
decisions regarding what names are defined to be in GNSO and ccNSO
name
spaces requires participation by the whole community and not just the
GNSO or ccNSO, as stated elsewhere in this document.
Do you have a suggested language change?
I think of balanced as a qualitative criterium and a not necessarily
as a quantitative criterium.
Purely personal viewpoint: While I know that some would ridicule us
for asking for an equal number of bodies, can you explain why this is
inappropriate in a group that will make decisions based on numerically
driven consensus. I wonder whether we are accepting a deliberate
devaluation by being unwilling to ask for full and equal participation.
Under the questions:
- The second bullet reads, "It is unclear who the intended
registries of
the to be defined IDN ccTLDs are. Are these the traditional ccTLD
registries as defined by RFC 1591? Are these the IDNs associated with
language and cultural communities as envisioned by the IDN WG? Or are
these new IDN ccTLDs critical national resources that come under some
form of national administration?" It is not clear to me why we are
asking these questions. They are questions that certainly need to be
answered and they have been raised in the Issues Paper and in the just
released IDNC document.
- In the last bullet change 'insure' to 'ensure'.
done, but i am not sure why. the OED indicates 'insure' is the
original alliteration of 'ensure'
insure: be careful or certain to do something; make certain of something
ensure: be careful or certain to do something; make certain of something
(these days i think of ensure as a marked word having to do with the
elderly nutrition.)
Under "The need for adequate GNSO representation on the IDNC WG":
- In the 1st paragraph, 1st sentence, depending on whether
'redefinition' is changed to 'definition' earlier in the document, we
may want to change it here as well;
done
secondly, 'need to resolved' to
'need to be resolved';
done
third, we use the term 'equal representation'
here whereas we said balanced representation earlier - equal
representation in my opinion seems to quite clearly imply numerical
equality.
personally, i don't think so. but i have changed it anyway.
I am not sure I agree with this if this group does decide on
name space allocation questions.
I do not understand what you mean here.
- In the 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence, change 'where' to 'were' and
'is'
to 'its'.
done and done
Under 'GNSO request':
- In the 1st sentence of the 1st paragraph, change 'insure' to
'ensure'
done
and change 'general name to space to IDN ccTLDs' to 'general name
space
to the ccNSO'.
done
- In the 1st sentence of the last paragraph, change 'the GNSO council
aslo respectfully request' to 'the GNSO Council also respectfully
requests'.
done and done.
thanks again
a.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|