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

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

So if I understand you correctly, you are okay with saying, "Yes, the
GNSO believes that there should be only one string per ISO 3166-1 entry
per relevant script."  Is that correct?  If so, then I understood Edmon
to say that he could live with that.

I thought you were suggesting that we change it to "Yes, the GNSO
believes that there should be only one string per ISO
3166-1 entry."  In other words, in a country like Singapore where they
have four official languages using four different scripts, they would
have to pick just one of those.  The current response as quoted in my
first paragraph above says that we would support them having one string
for each of the four scripts. Of course that doesn't mean the ccNSO
would decide that.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 1:28 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Council GNSO; Edmon Chung
Subject: RE: [council] RE: Tim's response regarding the third amendment

If I finally understand this correctly, the question is:

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?

And the current response is:

Yes, the GNSO believes that there should be only one string per ISO
3166-1 entry per relevant script.

And the suggested change to the proposed response is:

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.

I am not suggesting we don't answer the question. I am suggesting that
we stick with the current response. 


Tim 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] RE: Tim's response regarding the third amendment
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, February 13, 2008 12:03 am
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Tim,
 
The issues report asks a specific question regarding this issue.  Are
you suggesting that we do not answer the question?
 
Chuck

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 11:32 PM
To: Edmon Chung
Cc: 'Council GNSO'
Subject: RE: [council] RE: Tim's response regarding the third amendment



Yes, if we can stick with the original language in this document and let
whatever PDP goes forward deal with the gov't policy issue. I don't
think we need to go there in this document.


Tim Ruiz