No, I think we are in agreement to use the original wording:

9.         There should be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant script. Measures must be taken to limit confusion and collisions due to variants.

[That is barring the pending suggested edit regarding the ISO3166-1 list]

Edmon

From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 2:04 PM
To: Tim Ruiz; Edmon Chung
Cc: Council GNSO
Subject: RE: [council] RE: Tim's response regarding the third amendment

Tim,

The issues report asks a specific question regarding this issue.  Are you suggesting that we do not answer the question?

Chuck

---

From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 11:32 PM
To: Edmon Chung
Cc: 'Council GNSO'
Subject: RE: [council] RE: Tim's response regarding the third amendment

Yes, if we can stick with the original language in this document and let whatever PDP goes forward deal with the gov't policy issue. I don't think we need to go there in this document.

Tim Ruiz
Vice President
Corp. Development & Policy
The Go Daddy Group, Inc.
Direct: 319-329-9804
Fax: 480-247-4516
tim@godaddy.com

How am I doing? Please contact my direct supervisor at president@godaddy.com with any feedback.

This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] RE: Tim's response regarding the third amendment
From: "Edmon Chung" <edmon@dotasia.org>
Date: Tue, February 12, 2008 10:15 pm
To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@gnso.icann.org>


The document in general is focused on the "PDP" i.e. longer term discussion.
Perhaps we should focus on your suggestion regarding 1 per in the response
directly to the IDNC (fast track)? Would you be ok with that?
Edmon


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On
> Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 11:56 AM
> To: 'Council GNSO'
> Subject: [council] RE: Tim's response regarding the third amendment
>
>
> Perhaps the issue is that the response needs to clarify between the fast
> track and the issues for the PDP. For the fast track, one per entry for
> which an IANA delegation exists, and a different response for the PDP
> input.
>
> Tim
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Tim's response regarding the third amendment
> From: Tim Ruiz <tim@godaddy.com>
> Date: Tue, February 12, 2008 9:48 pm
> To: 'Council GNSO' <council@gnso.icann.org>
>
> I thought this was supposed to be an interim solution. A fast track for
> existing ccTLDs. Agreeing to one so-called IDN ccTLD per 3166-1 entry,
> for which an IANA delegation exists, is very generous. Any others should
> wait for whatever PDP ensues to resolve it further.
>
> Tim