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