No, I think we are in agreement to use the original wording: 9. There should be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant script. Measures must be taken to limit confusion and collisions due to variants. [That is barring the pending suggested edit regarding the ISO3166-1 list] Edmon From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 2:04 PM To: Tim Ruiz; Edmon Chung Cc: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] RE: Tim's response regarding the third amendment Tim, The issues report asks a specific question regarding this issue. Are you suggesting that we do not answer the question? Chuck _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 11:32 PM To: Edmon Chung Cc: 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] RE: Tim's response regarding the third amendment Yes, if we can stick with the original language in this document and let whatever PDP goes forward deal with the gov't policy issue. I don't think we need to go there in this document. Tim Ruiz Vice President Corp. Development & Policy The Go Daddy Group, Inc. Direct: 319-329-9804 Fax: 480-247-4516 tim@godaddy.com How am I doing? Please contact my direct supervisor at president@godaddy.com with any feedback. This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] RE: Tim's response regarding the third amendment From: "Edmon Chung" <edmon@dotasia.org> Date: Tue, February 12, 2008 10:15 pm To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@gnso.icann.org> 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 <https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=reply&folder=INB...> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org <https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=reply&folder=INB...> ] 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 <https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=reply&folder=INB...> > Date: Tue, February 12, 2008 9:48 pm To: 'Council GNSO' <council@gnso.icann.org <https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=reply&folder=INB...> >

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