I support it as well (as edited). There is one correct to the grammar that I suggest. In the last sentence of the second bullet under the second paragraph of the document: Identification of this issues is... should be Identification of these issues is... Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Draft comment to the Draft IDN ccTLD Fast Track Implementation Plan Rev2 From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Thu, March 26, 2009 6:15 pm To: "Edmon Chung" <edmon@dotasia.org>, "Council GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org> Thanks Edmon for preparing this. I made some suggested edits that are highlighted in the attached file that I believe do not change the substantive meaning of what you prepared; please confirm that that is true or, if not, suggest additional edits. With the edits, I support this as a GNSO statement. As Edmon states in the document, it is consistent with previous GNSO statements approved by the Council. Chuck

-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 3:25 PM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] Draft comment to the Draft IDN ccTLD Fast Track Implementation Plan Rev2

Hi Everyone,

Apologies for the delay of circulating this. Please see attached the draft comment as discussed during our wrap up meeting in Mexico.

The comment basically applauds ICANN staff of the progress on the process and highlights a few points: 1. the consideration of variants for IDN TLDs 2. the identification of need for a formalized relationship between ICANN and the IDN ccTLD manager 3. the recognition that financial contribution should be required from IDN ccTLD managers to offset its program costs

And then reiterates our resolution in January 2009 pertaining the subject.

As a reminder, the comment period closes April 6 2009, therefore we still have a bit more than a week to consider the comments before submitting.

Edmon