Thanks Edmon. Your suggested edits look pretty good overall but I do have one question regarding the following new question you suggest adding in 4.b.(i): "For example, should the IDN ccTLD manager be required to engage in an understanding with ICANN?" What does it mean to 'engage in an understanding'? Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2008 11:42 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] Edits to the IDNC Initial Report Hi Everyone, Attached please find edits I will be sending to the IDNC regarding the Initial Report circulated to the group earlier. Key points that I have edited in include: - consideration that requirements and process for Fast Track may be different from the longer term process - as such, certain requirements such as requiring an explicit commitment with ICANN, may be appropriate for the Fast Track even as it may not be necessary for the longer term process - added questions on whether a list of potential TLD strings should be compiled for the Fast Track - adherence to ICANN IDN Guidelines as a requirement - consideration for policies to curb phishing and avoid conflicts due to variants - restructured slightly the flow of the document to identify the topics as: - string selection - requirements - process - ccTLD manager determination - requirements - process - avoidance of TLD strings that maybe confusingly similar to existing TLDs Comments welcome as usual. Edmon