RE: [council] Edits to the IDNC Initial Report

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

Thanks Edmon.  Your suggested edits look pretty good overall but I do
have one question regarding the following new question you suggest
adding in 4.b.(i): "For example, should the IDN ccTLD manager be
required to engage in an understanding with ICANN?" What does it mean to
'engage in an understanding'?

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Edmon Chung
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2008 11:42 AM
To: 'Council GNSO'
Subject: [council] Edits to the IDNC Initial Report


Hi Everyone,

Attached please find edits I will be sending to the IDNC regarding the
Initial Report circulated to the group earlier.

Key points that I have edited in include:
- consideration that requirements and process for Fast Track may be
different from the longer term process
- as such, certain requirements such as requiring an explicit commitment
with ICANN, may be appropriate for the Fast Track even as it may not be
necessary for the longer term process
- added questions on whether a list of potential TLD strings should be
compiled for the Fast Track
- adherence to ICANN IDN Guidelines as a requirement
- consideration for policies to curb phishing and avoid conflicts due to
variants
- restructured slightly the flow of the document to identify the topics
as:
        - string selection
                - requirements
                - process
        - ccTLD manager determination
                - requirements
                - process
- avoidance of TLD strings that maybe confusingly similar to existing
TLDs

Comments welcome as usual.

Edmon