RE: [council] RE: Tim's response regarding the third amendment

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

The document in general is focused on the "PDP" i.e. longer term discussion.
Perhaps we should focus on your suggestion regarding 1 per in the response 
directly to the IDNC (fast track)?  Would you be ok with that?
Edmon


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 11:56 AM
> To: 'Council GNSO'
> Subject: [council] RE: Tim's response regarding the third amendment
>
>
> Perhaps the issue is that the response needs to clarify between the fast
> track and the issues for the PDP. For the fast track, one per entry for
> which an IANA delegation exists, and a different response for the PDP
> input.
>
> Tim
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Tim's response regarding the third amendment
> From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, February 12, 2008 9:48 pm
> To: 'Council GNSO' <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I thought this was supposed to be an interim solution. A fast track for
> existing ccTLDs. Agreeing to one so-called IDN ccTLD per 3166-1 entry,
> for which an IANA delegation exists, is very generous. Any others should
> wait for whatever PDP ensues to resolve it further.
>
> Tim