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

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

Thanks Mike.

In my understanding, which is limited, I believe that saying "There may
be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry 
per relevant language" would be less restrictive than saying "There may
be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry 
per relevant script" because I think there are many more languages than
scripts.  Also, I believe the better term from an IDN technical
perspective is 'script', rather than 'language'.  At the same time, the
only way we can deal with the concern expressed by the GAC Indian
representative is to introduce the term 'language'.

Secondly, I personally have concerns about referring to 'official
languages' for the reasons stated by Alan in our Council meeting so I
would prefer avoiding that and dealing with your conerns there in some
other way.

How about something like the following: "For the fast track process
there should be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per
relevant script as defined in the IDNC report and, in cases where a
territory has multiple languages in the same script, per relevant
language in the applicable script."

I am sure that this can be improved further and look forward to
additional suggestions.  

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 9:29 AM
> To: 'Council GNSO'
> Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
>