ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report

  • To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 22:55:31 +0200
  • In-reply-to: <019c01c8f2fb$11e85110$35b8f330$@org>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <019c01c8f2fb$11e85110$35b8f330$@org>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Again thanks to Edmon for getting the report in time for this meeting - especially as we need to submit our response before the 15 Aug deadline.

As there has not been any discussion on the list about this response yet, I wanted to make sure people had seen this item.

On 31 Jul 2008, at 12:49, Edmon Chung wrote:

Then finally we also added a paragraph to revise one of the points in our previous statement in response to strong objection by the Indian delegate during our meeting with the GAC in Paris. The paragraph was specifically tagged for council review because it is a revision of a statement we had put
out earlier and the particular point was discussed at length.

Anyway, for your quick reference, the suggested revised statement is as

There should be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant
script per relevant language.

I will be proposing that we agree to send this response in by the deadline of 15 August. So if you believe there are any edits necessary, please send them to the list for discussion as soon as possible. Except for this one item, the rest of the response is believed to be in keeping with the previous responses and positions taken over the last months.



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>