<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: RE: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report
- To: "Norbert Klein" <nhklein@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: RE: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report
- From: "Olga Cavalli" <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 03:06:46 -0300
- Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; bh=Tcf4KUXm0RN5xcOKH/5iS2h6ngH9wwJyytjjVGuAQlw=; b=g8PMpiWUQIfwdzsYSCYrSvoD6QDOGJrP3auNpZROpJH390tjhpKbYAIlibyJPh/o5NLvkK9IOwi9f6t2lepVwfX7ONQmKCQJYWvTblNcocqDH68prwC8O+pH/xxrnXiEUQM4OUBkFY/EV1usAxr02gC2h0jPXwT6TFaGh1bGNXs=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=d9xk3Cf1MNBrjDPSpBjJSU3qkSfP3chcqTtgnDv2OjWe2+tVeaCTOVmWqUoIbfMBevJStWJbvXLZ8xKpUSrnf7s55AVmQhVmUMKpo+jaUPyEUb2VBHh1b3CO8n8ydNGNwo0AIRB9oImGawT5WvSQVV/o7NimfaS+F9bxbNkhXzY=
- In-reply-to: <200802111039.36073.nhklein@gmx.net>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <200802111039.36073.nhklein@gmx.net>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Avri, collegues,
I agree with the change in 5. of the Executive Summary.
On the other hand they asked me why considering the ISO list, if all
countries could apply for IDNs cc or gtlds once the process starts. In
the fast track stage each country could get one significant idn cctld.
All new IDN ccTLDs and IDNs gTLDs should have the same contractual
relationship with ICANN, all should be treated equally.
Regards
Olga
2008/2/11, Norbert Klein <nhklein@xxxxxxx>:
> I also agree with Avri's suggestion, where others already consented.
>
> At the table I was - and I later talking to people from another table - there
> was opposition to the "One IDNccTLD per one script per one language
> group": "their government should decide to choose just one."
>
> I was surprised about the lack of sensitivity on the political/social/cultural
> implications. I argued - as a example - saying that it would be highly
> destructive in the presently tense situation, if the Malaysian government
> would give preference to the Chinese over against the Indian ethnic sections
> of the society by allocating only one IDNccTLD, but this was dismissed
> as "not ICANN's problem."
>
> Norbert
>
> -
>
> ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
>
> Subject: RE: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report
> Date: Monday, 11 February 2008
> From: "Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> Agreed.
> Edmon
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> > Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis
> > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 10:11 AM
> > To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO
> > Subject: RE: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report
> >
> >
> > The same issue was raised at our table Avri.
> >
> > I believe your suggested change would be appropriate.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Adrian Kinderis
>
> --
> If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia,
> please visit us regularly - you can find something new every day:
>
> http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com
>
>
> Agreed.
> Edmon
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> > Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis
> > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 10:11 AM
> > To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO
> > Subject: RE: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report
> >
> >
> > The same issue was raised at our table Avri.
> >
> > I believe your suggested change would be appropriate.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Adrian Kinderis
> > Managing Director
> > AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd
> > Level 8, 10 Queens Road
> > Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004
> > Ph: +61 3 9866 3710
> > Fax: +61 3 9866 1970
> > Email: adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Web: www.ausregistrygroup.com
> >
> > The information contained in this communication is intended for the
> > named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain
> > legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an
> > intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action
> > in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error,
> > please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > Sent: Monday, 11 February 2008 12:59 PM
> > To: Council GNSO
> > Subject: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > At my table this evening, we had a conversation about Executive
> > summary point #5 - specifically the last phrase "... without GNSO's
> > concurrence"
> >
> > While explaning it this, I explained that it really refered to the
> > need to have have resolved the issue as explained in #2 and the ICANn
> > community had achieved a common agreement of an interim procedure.
> >
> > I am wondering whether we might be to change it to say: " without
> > prior community concurrence"
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > a.
>
>
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|