Hi, I guess that is a good question: Is the GNSO council, or the GNSO itself, supportive of the fast track as it has been laid out in the charter? Since the council is currently in the position of picking 2 representatives for the IDNC, we need to determine to what degree they can support the IDNC's fast track's goals. a. On 5 dec 2007, at 16.19, Edmon Chung wrote:
To what extent is there support within the council for the allocation of at most 1 IDN in 1 Script per 3166-1 based ccTLD by methods chosen by the IDNC fast track WG, so long as it is clearly understood that no other allocations may be made until such time as there is a community wide discussion and agreement of any further re-allocation of gNSO namespace to the ccNSO?
The question itself may be problematic I think. And is one which the ccTLDs themselves are avoiding. I do not think specifying "at most 1 IDN in 1 Script per 3166" is a good idea. It may appear that we have not heard some of the sensitivities and concerns from the local communities. i.e. I worry it would not be seen as supportive for the fast track (which I think is the original intent).
I feel that simply indicating that we are supportive of a fast track concept given that it is a more contained "experimental" process would be more appropriate than specifying 1-IDN-1-cc.
Edmon