Dear Chris and everybody: Would we just modify the last sentence to be like this: The ccNSO Council notes the apparent change in the view of the GNSO regarding the timing of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track and the new IDN gTLD process. ccNSO would like to understand the significant causes that lead to the apparent change in view. In this way, we could let them let us what’s their major concerns are first. then we can discuss it later Best regards Jian ZHang _____ 发件人: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] 代表 Chris Disspain 发送时间: 2009年2月19日 8:45 收件人: ccNSO Council 主题: [ccnso-council] Resolution Council on GNSO positions re timing of processes. All, Here is the slightly amended resolution. Please now vote on the list. Councillors may vote in favour, against or may abstain. "Resolution ccNSO Council 19 February 2009 on timing of the launch of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track and new IDN gTLD process. Background In 2007 the ccNSO, and the ICANN community generally, discussed the possibility of using an interim approach to IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes to meet near-term demands and to gain experience with mechanisms for the selection and delegation of IDN ccTLDs that would also inform a policy development process aimed at creating an overall policy on IDN ccTLDs. To that end in November 2007 the ICANN Board requested the chairs of the ALAC, ccNSO , GAC, GNSO and SSAC to establish a working group (the IDNC Working Group) to develop and report on feasible methods, if any, that would enable the introduction, in a timely manner and in a manner that ensures the continued security and stability of the Internet, of a limited number of IDN ccTLDs while the overall policy is being developed. After extensive community comment, the IDNC Working Group submitted its final report to the ICANN Board. In May 2008 the Board directed ICANN staff to post the IDNC WG final report for public comments, commence work on implementation issues in consultation with relevant stakeholders and submit a detailed implementation plan including a list of any outstanding issues to the Board in advance of the ICANN Cairo meeting in November 2008. Resolution The ccNSO Council notes that the GNSO Council submitted substantive comments on the IDNC WG final report. Included in those comments was a statement that “the introduction of IDN gTLDs or IDN ccTLDs should not be delayed because of lack of readiness of one category, but if they are not introduced at the same time, steps should be taken so that neither category is advantaged or disadvantaged, and procedures should be developed to avoid possible conflicts” (GNSO Council submission, 15 August 2008). The ccNSO Council also notes the GNSO Council resolution of 8 January 2009, which states that the GNSO Council strongly believes that neither the new gTLD nor ccTLD fast track process should result in IDN TLDs being entered into the root before the other unless both the GNSO and ccNSO so agree. The ccNSO Council notes the apparent change in the view of the GNSO regarding the timing of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track and the new IDN gTLD process. ccNSO would like to understand the significant causes that lead to the apparent change in view. Cheers, Chris Disspain CEO - auDA au Domain Administration Ltd ceo@auda.org.au www.auda.org.au Important Notice - This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of lesley@nominet.org.uk Sent: Thursday, 19 February 2009 02:09 To: Chris Disspain Cc: 'Bart Boswinkel'; 'ccNSO Council'; owner-ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: RE: [ccnso-council] Resolution Council on GNSO positions re timing of processes.
Hi Chris,
3 very minor amendments proposed:
owner-ccnso-council@icann.org wrote on 18/02/2009 09:13:08: <...>
Resolution The ccNSO Council notes that the GNSO Council submitted substantive comments on the IDNC WG final report. Included in those comments
add 'was'
a statement that ?the introduction of IDN gTLDs or IDN ccTLDs should not be delayed because of lack of readiness of one category,
<....>
The ccNSO Council notes the apparent change in the view on
Should be 'of'
the GNSO regarding the timing of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track and the new IDN gTLD process,
Suggest full stop here.
and prior to stating its position, would welcome a discussion with the GNSO Council to gain a better understanding of the apparent change in view.
Suggest replace with: 'Prior to stating the ccNSO Council position, we ....
(Apologies if I'm being picky).
Kind regards, Lesley