Thank you very much Kristina. Your dilligence is very much appreciated. We will include your input in our session. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2008 10:12 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Today's Meetings - comments on GNSO response to ccNSO-GAC IDN issues report All, I probably will not be participating in today's meetings, but wanted to send along some comments about the current draft "GNSO Comments in Response to ccNSO-GAC IDN Issues Report." It's very well-drafted - many thanks to those of you who worked on it. I have only one general comment and two specific comments: General comment: The use of "should-must-may" appears in some places to correspond to RFC 2119 and to correspond to the specific question in others. If the intention is to use the RFC 2119 convention, it may be worthwhile to run quickly through the paper to have them conform. Specific comments: p. 4, lines 10-18: I found this answer confusing. I read the first two sentences to suggest a desire to avoid a "post award change" (comparable to the type we've discussed in connection with new gTLD recommendation 20), and the latter to shift the focus to contractual conditions. If this answer is referring, for example, to ccTLDs like .tv and .cm, then it seems inconsistent with the position that we've taken to date w/r/t new gTLDs in which the applicant claims to target a community, is awarded the gTLD on that basis, and then no longer targets that community. p. 12, lines 32-33 and 45-46: These answers seem inconsistent to me. I'll be on line until about 8:30 AM Delhi time and am happy to answer questions if you have them. K