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

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Answering my own email with some suggested language, picking up on a
suggestion Chuck made, and trying to define 'relevant' as Robin and I had
suggested:

There may be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant
language, except that in countries where relevant languages are rendered in
more than one script, there may be one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry
per relevant script per relevant language.  "Relevant" languages are defined
as Official languages, or in nations where there are no Official languages,
languages used by more than ten percent (10%) of the nation's population.

I suspect the 10% rule may not work for some, but let's start the discussion
to get this more narrowly tailored.

Thanks,
Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 5:04 AM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report

Hi all,

I have a question on this new reco of the WG:   There should be only one IDN
ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant script per relevant language.

Does this mean that the USA, for example, can have .us IDN strings in every
script of every language used by a significant number of people in the US?
If 'relevant' is not defined as 'significant number of users', then how?  Is
it conceivable that this could be more carefully drafted to consider the
specific Indian concern, but not allow such a broad swath of IDN ccTLDs for
every country?

Thanks,
Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 1:56 PM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report


hi,

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
> follows:
>
>> 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.

Thanks.

a.