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

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

That might work.  Note that the issues paper is about the ccPDP not the
fast track; it is just that some of the same issues and questions relate
to the fast track.

Chuck 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 10:56 PM
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