Hi, Thank you very much for your superb proof reading and for all the many edits. Comments in line. I will send out another version later tonight so that I have time to capture any other comments and corrections that people might have. On 19 dec 2007, at 17.13, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

Thanks Avri. This was very well written. I compliment the group in getting this down in writing.

In case we do decide to send this document, here are a few minor edits and some other suggested changes that I think are nonmaterial in terms of the content plus a few observations and questions.

I think it would be helpful to do a global change of "Council" to "GNSO Council" just to make it clear which Council we are talking about because the ccNSO has a Council as well.

done

1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: change "limited number of IDN TLD representing territories" to "limited number of IDN TLDs representing territories".

done

End of 2nd paragraph: I suggest we change 'IDN ccTLDs' to 'IDN TLDs associated with ISO 3166-1 country codes' with a footnote that says something like, "Throughout the rest of this document we use the term 'IDN ccTLDs' because that is the term used by the Board, the ccNSO and the GAC." The rationale for this change is to recognize that IDN TLDs are not really ccTLDs until such time as a decision is made to apportion the IDN TLDs to the ccNSO, thereby being consistent with our argument in the text that follows.

done

Under 'Basis for allocating TLDs to the GTLD and ccTLD name spaces', 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence: change 'IDN ccTLD' to 'IDN ccTLDs'.

done

In the same section, 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence: I would put 'Among most in the GNSO' in brackets until such time that we establish that is the case and also suggest that we may want to say 'Among most on the GNSO Council' unless we plan to involve the broader GNSO in making this determination.

Don. I would be interested in knowing if: a. most GNSO council member do support this statement b. council members want to go for constituency review of this note so that we can say GNSO instead of GSNO council. In the meantime I think that council members can take this memo to their constituencies for discussion.

The same sentence says, "the assumption is still that all TLDs, except for .mil, .edu, and the ISO3166-1 defined ccTLDs remain within the remit of the GNSO." Shouldn't we also include .int, .arpa and .gov?

but of course. done

The last sentence of the same paragraph reads, "The conclusions of such a process should also be permit, and may also require, a redefinition of the ccNSO and GNSO remits as they are currently defined." First, I think the word 'be' should be deleted.

done

Second, where is the definition of the GNSO name space currently defined? I understand that some assume the definition in this document, but what is that assumption based on? If it is not defined anywhere other than in people's memory, we may want to say, "a definition of the ccNSO and GNSO name spaces."

While I have not found a single primary source that says this, is it really beyond doubt that this was the intent in the split of DNSO between the GNSO and the ccNSO. If we doubt this basic principle, one that was behind all of our work in the new gTLD PDP, perhaps we should not be appealing the charter as it stands. Personally I have no doubt that this is the de-facto definition and that there is no mention anywhere of another defntion. the entire notion that there may be another way to look at it is new invention as far as I can tell. For now I will put 'the' and 'a' in in brackets, i.e [the, a] nd am inersted in hearing others on this topic.

Footnote 2: I believe "It should noted that the recommends . . " should say, "It should noted that the recommendations . . "

I have dropped the footnote. While I remember that we spoke of such a recommendation to the staff relating the notification of the GAC of any geographical names that were applied for, I find so such specific mention in our final document. It is still a good idea in my opinion, and I hope the staff does so, but we cannot claim to have said so in our document. unless of course I am missing it and someone else can point it out to me.

The last paragraph, last sentence of the same paragraph says, "Until such time as the ICANN community at large has decided on the proper apportionment of the IDN TLD name space for the ccNSO's remit, any fast-track method must be developed with balanced participation from the GNSO, along with the ccNSO and GAC." As I said to you elsewhere, I personally think that many will perceive 'balanced participation' to mean 'equal numbers'. My understanding is that that is not what is intended here; if not, I suggest we make that clear. I do not think that we necessarily need equal numbers, but I do believe that any decisions regarding what names are defined to be in GNSO and ccNSO name spaces requires participation by the whole community and not just the GNSO or ccNSO, as stated elsewhere in this document.

Do you have a suggested language change? I think of balanced as a qualitative criterium and a not necessarily as a quantitative criterium. Purely personal viewpoint: While I know that some would ridicule us for asking for an equal number of bodies, can you explain why this is inappropriate in a group that will make decisions based on numerically driven consensus. I wonder whether we are accepting a deliberate devaluation by being unwilling to ask for full and equal participation.

Under the questions:

- The second bullet reads, "It is unclear who the intended registries of the to be defined IDN ccTLDs are. Are these the traditional ccTLD registries as defined by RFC 1591? Are these the IDNs associated with language and cultural communities as envisioned by the IDN WG? Or are these new IDN ccTLDs critical national resources that come under some form of national administration?" It is not clear to me why we are asking these questions. They are questions that certainly need to be answered and they have been raised in the Issues Paper and in the just released IDNC document.

- In the last bullet change 'insure' to 'ensure'.

done, but i am not sure why. the OED indicates 'insure' is the original alliteration of 'ensure' insure: be careful or certain to do something; make certain of something ensure: be careful or certain to do something; make certain of something (these days i think of ensure as a marked word having to do with the elderly nutrition.)

Under "The need for adequate GNSO representation on the IDNC WG":

- In the 1st paragraph, 1st sentence, depending on whether 'redefinition' is changed to 'definition' earlier in the document, we may want to change it here as well;

done

secondly, 'need to resolved' to 'need to be resolved';

done

third, we use the term 'equal representation' here whereas we said balanced representation earlier - equal representation in my opinion seems to quite clearly imply numerical equality.

personally, i don't think so. but i have changed it anyway.

I am not sure I agree with this if this group does decide on name space allocation questions.

I do not understand what you mean here.

- In the 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence, change 'where' to 'were' and 'is' to 'its'.

done and done

Under 'GNSO request':

- In the 1st sentence of the 1st paragraph, change 'insure' to 'ensure'

done

and change 'general name to space to IDN ccTLDs' to 'general name space to the ccNSO'.

done

- In the 1st sentence of the last paragraph, change 'the GNSO council aslo respectfully request' to 'the GNSO Council also respectfully requests'.

done and done.

thanks again a.

On 19 dec 2007, at 18.23, Chuck Gomes wrote:

Under the questions:

- The second bullet reads, "It is unclear who the intended registries of the to be defined IDN ccTLDs are. Are these the traditional ccTLD registries as defined by RFC 1591? Are these the IDNs associated with language and cultural communities as envisioned by the IDN WG? Or are these new IDN ccTLDs critical national resources that come under some form of national administration?" It is not clear to me why we are asking these questions. They are questions that certainly need to be answered and they have been raised in the Issues Paper and in the just released IDNC document.

I realized this morning that i neither commented on this nor did anything about it in the working draft. I should have at the very least put brackets around the paragraph, which I have now done, and which will show up in the next version I send out. I can see how these questions may be somewhat borderline as a-priori concerns, but do think they are relevant to the question of precedents and preconditions. a.