[council] #9 of Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

fter some discussion at the Registries Constituency today, would like to make 
the following suggested edits to #9.

The current wording:

9.      There should be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per 
relevant script. Measures must be taken to limit confusion and collisions due 
to variants.


Suggested edit:

9.      There should be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per 
relevant script, except in those cases where one script is used for multiple 
languages and governmental policy makes selecting a single string 
inappropriate. Measures must be taken to limit confusion and collisions due to 
variants.


The rationale for the edit is to provide for the situation is for example in 
India where one script is used for multiple languages and the representation 
of "india" in those different languages using the same script may be 
different.

We would have to make a change to the main body as well, mainly with regards 
to the response to:
a) Should there similarly be only a single IDN ccTLD for a given script for 
each ¡¥territory¡¦ or can there be multiple IDN ccTLD strings? For example, 
should there be only one equivalent of .cn in Chinese script for China or .ru 
in Cyrillic for Russia?
Proposed GNSO response: Yes, the GNSO believes that there should be only one 
string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant script.


Suggested change to the proposed response:

Yes, the GNSO believes that there should be only one string per ISO 3166-1 
entry per relevant script., except in those cases where one script is used for 
multiple languages and governmental policy makes selecting a single string 
inappropriate. Measures must be taken to limit confusion and collisions due to 
variants.


Edmon