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

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think this would more narrowly proscribe IDN ccTLDs than I think is
necessary, but does provide impetus to end the fast track asap and get the
full policy developed.  It then remains an issue we must continue to monitor
in that ccPDP.  So I'm OK with it, too, but could be more flexible if
needed.  We at least need to make sure the current language changes, as it
is too open-ended and vague.

-Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 7:29 AM
To: Tim Ruiz; Council GNSO
Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report


Tim's wording seems pretty good to me.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 10:06 AM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report
> 
> 
> Thanks Mike. Regarding the first part, I think the following 
> comes closer to capturing my concerns:
> 
> There may be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry 
> per relevant script per relevant language, but in any event 
> no more than one fasttrack IDN per relevant language. 
> 
> That allows the broader concept for the overall ccNSO PDP but 
> keeps it somewhat narrower for the fasttrack.
>  
> Tim 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report
> From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, August 07, 2008 8:29 am
> To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>