Hi Everyone, As discussed in our last council call, a drafting team convened to redraft a set of comments in response to the IDNC WG Final Report. Please find attached the draft. In summary, the document is separated in to 3 main parts: Part 1: Acknowledgement of good points in the IDNC report with some suggestions for further improvement 1. The use of international standard to define official language and meaningfulness of string 2. The conducting of an RFI (Request for Information) 3. Fast Track being an ongoing mechanism 4. Waiting for IDNAbis review to be completed before implementation Part 2: Issues of significant concern A. Non-contentiousness only within territory B. Lack of process for determining non-contentiousness C. Lack of mechanism to enforce compliance Part 3: Reiterating some points from the GNSO Response to the GAC issues paper - IDN gTLDs and ccTLDs should be introduced asap - IDN gTLDs and ccTLDs should go together - Confusingly similar strings should be avoided - Considerations against spoofing Then finally we also added a paragraph to revise one of the points in our previous statement in response to strong objection by the Indian delegate during our meeting with the GAC in Paris. The paragraph was specifically tagged for council review because it is a revision of a statement we had put out earlier and the particular point was discussed at length. Anyway, for your quick reference, the suggested revised statement is as follows: There should be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant script per relevant language. Finally, the comment period currently open at ICANN is scheduled to close on Aug 15. The plan is to have the document agreed to in our meeting next week: Aug 7 to allow us to submit the comments in time. Suggestions, edits, comments welcome. Discussion on the list before our meeting next week should be useful. Edmon