<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Draft comment to the Draft IDN ccTLD Fast Track Implementation Plan Rev2
- To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: RE: [council] Draft comment to the Draft IDN ccTLD Fast Track Implementation Plan Rev2
- From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 03:04:05 -0700
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Reply-to: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Web-Based Email 5.0.8
I support it as well (as edited). There is one correct to the grammar
that I suggest. In the last sentence of the second bullet under the
second paragraph of the document:
Identification of this issues is...
should be
Identification of these issues is...
Tim
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] Draft comment to the Draft IDN ccTLD Fast Track
Implementation Plan Rev2
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, March 26, 2009 6:15 pm
To: "Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO"
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks Edmon for preparing this. I made some suggested edits that are
highlighted in the attached file that I believe do not change the
substantive meaning of what you prepared; please confirm that that is
true or, if not, suggest additional edits.
With the edits, I support this as a GNSO statement. As Edmon states in
the document, it is consistent with previous GNSO statements approved by
the Council.
Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung
> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 3:25 PM
> To: 'Council GNSO'
> Subject: [council] Draft comment to the Draft IDN ccTLD Fast
> Track Implementation Plan Rev2
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Apologies for the delay of circulating this. Please see
> attached the draft comment as discussed during our wrap up
> meeting in Mexico.
>
> The comment basically applauds ICANN staff of the progress on
> the process and highlights a few points:
> 1. the consideration of variants for IDN TLDs 2. the
> identification of need for a formalized relationship between
> ICANN and the IDN ccTLD manager 3. the recognition that
> financial contribution should be required from IDN ccTLD
> managers to offset its program costs
>
> And then reiterates our resolution in January 2009 pertaining
> the subject.
>
> As a reminder, the comment period closes April 6 2009,
> therefore we still have a bit more than a week to consider
> the comments before submitting.
>
> Edmon
>
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|