RE: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report
Thanks Mike. Regarding the first part, I think the following comes closer to capturing my concerns: There may be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant script per relevant language, but in any event no more than one fasttrack IDN per relevant language. That allows the broader concept for the overall ccNSO PDP but keeps it somewhat narrower for the fasttrack. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@rodenbaugh.com> Date: Thu, August 07, 2008 8:29 am To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@gnso.icann.org> Answering my own email with some suggested language, picking up on a suggestion Chuck made, and trying to define 'relevant' as Robin and I had suggested: There may be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant language, except that in countries where relevant languages are rendered in more than one script, there may be one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant script per relevant language. "Relevant" languages are defined as Official languages, or in nations where there are no Official languages, languages used by more than ten percent (10%) of the nation's population. I suspect the 10% rule may not work for some, but let's start the discussion to get this more narrowly tailored. Thanks, Mike -----Original Message----- From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 5:04 AM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report Hi all, I have a question on this new reco of the WG: There should be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant script per relevant language. Does this mean that the USA, for example, can have .us IDN strings in every script of every language used by a significant number of people in the US? If 'relevant' is not defined as 'significant number of users', then how? Is it conceivable that this could be more carefully drafted to consider the specific Indian concern, but not allow such a broad swath of IDN ccTLDs for every country? Thanks, Mike -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 1:56 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report hi, Again thanks to Edmon for getting the report in time for this meeting - especially as we need to submit our response before the 15 Aug deadline. As there has not been any discussion on the list about this response yet, I wanted to make sure people had seen this item. On 31 Jul 2008, at 12:49, Edmon Chung wrote:
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.
I will be proposing that we agree to send this response in by the deadline of 15 August. So if you believe there are any edits necessary, please send them to the list for discussion as soon as possible. Except for this one item, the rest of the response is believed to be in keeping with the previous responses and positions taken over the last months. Thanks. a.
Tim's wording seems pretty good to me. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 10:06 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report
Thanks Mike. Regarding the first part, I think the following comes closer to capturing my concerns:
There may be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant script per relevant language, but in any event no more than one fasttrack IDN per relevant language.
That allows the broader concept for the overall ccNSO PDP but keeps it somewhat narrower for the fasttrack.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@rodenbaugh.com> Date: Thu, August 07, 2008 8:29 am To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@gnso.icann.org>
Answering my own email with some suggested language, picking up on a suggestion Chuck made, and trying to define 'relevant' as Robin and I had suggested:
There may be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant language, except that in countries where relevant languages are rendered in more than one script, there may be one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant script per relevant language. "Relevant" languages are defined as Official languages, or in nations where there are no Official languages, languages used by more than ten percent (10%) of the nation's population.
I suspect the 10% rule may not work for some, but let's start the discussion to get this more narrowly tailored.
Thanks, Mike
-----Original Message----- From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 5:04 AM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report
Hi all,
I have a question on this new reco of the WG: There should be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant script per relevant language.
Does this mean that the USA, for example, can have .us IDN strings in every script of every language used by a significant number of people in the US? If 'relevant' is not defined as 'significant number of users', then how? Is it conceivable that this could be more carefully drafted to consider the specific Indian concern, but not allow such a broad swath of IDN ccTLDs for every country?
Thanks, Mike
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 1:56 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report
hi,
Again thanks to Edmon for getting the report in time for this meeting - especially as we need to submit our response before the 15 Aug deadline.
As there has not been any discussion on the list about this response yet, I wanted to make sure people had seen this item.
On 31 Jul 2008, at 12:49, Edmon Chung wrote:
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.
I will be proposing that we agree to send this response in by the deadline of 15 August. So if you believe there are any edits necessary, please send them to the list for discussion as soon as possible. Except for this one item, the rest of the response is believed to be in keeping with the previous responses and positions taken over the last months.
Thanks.
a.
I think this would more narrowly proscribe IDN ccTLDs than I think is necessary, but does provide impetus to end the fast track asap and get the full policy developed. It then remains an issue we must continue to monitor in that ccPDP. So I'm OK with it, too, but could be more flexible if needed. We at least need to make sure the current language changes, as it is too open-ended and vague. -Mike -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 7:29 AM To: Tim Ruiz; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report Tim's wording seems pretty good to me. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 10:06 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report
Thanks Mike. Regarding the first part, I think the following comes closer to capturing my concerns:
There may be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant script per relevant language, but in any event no more than one fasttrack IDN per relevant language.
That allows the broader concept for the overall ccNSO PDP but keeps it somewhat narrower for the fasttrack.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@rodenbaugh.com> Date: Thu, August 07, 2008 8:29 am To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@gnso.icann.org>
Answering my own email with some suggested language, picking up on a suggestion Chuck made, and trying to define 'relevant' as Robin and I had suggested:
There may be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant language, except that in countries where relevant languages are rendered in more than one script, there may be one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant script per relevant language. "Relevant" languages are defined as Official languages, or in nations where there are no Official languages, languages used by more than ten percent (10%) of the nation's population.
I suspect the 10% rule may not work for some, but let's start the discussion to get this more narrowly tailored.
Thanks, Mike
-----Original Message----- From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 5:04 AM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report
Hi all,
I have a question on this new reco of the WG: There should be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant script per relevant language.
Does this mean that the USA, for example, can have .us IDN strings in every script of every language used by a significant number of people in the US? If 'relevant' is not defined as 'significant number of users', then how? Is it conceivable that this could be more carefully drafted to consider the specific Indian concern, but not allow such a broad swath of IDN ccTLDs for every country?
Thanks, Mike
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 1:56 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report
hi,
Again thanks to Edmon for getting the report in time for this meeting - especially as we need to submit our response before the 15 Aug deadline.
As there has not been any discussion on the list about this response yet, I wanted to make sure people had seen this item.
On 31 Jul 2008, at 12:49, Edmon Chung wrote:
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.
I will be proposing that we agree to send this response in by the deadline of 15 August. So if you believe there are any edits necessary, please send them to the list for discussion as soon as possible. Except for this one item, the rest of the response is believed to be in keeping with the previous responses and positions taken over the last months.
Thanks.
a.
Apologies for the delays for turning this document around. Please find attached the updated document. I have adopted the suggested edits by Tim. On the other point, regarding financial consideration / cost-recovery issue, I did not see any suggestion from Tim, so I have added the following to the final sentence of the final paragraph: "and the consideration of cost and cost recovery principle of ICANN processes, will be paramount for the success of the Fast Track IDN ccTLD process." Hope this works for everyone. Edmon PS. Avri, please take it from here. Upon finalization, I am happy to help post it to the public comments.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 9:23 AM To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Tim Ruiz'; 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report
I think this would more narrowly proscribe IDN ccTLDs than I think is necessary, but does provide impetus to end the fast track asap and get the full policy developed. It then remains an issue we must continue to monitor in that ccPDP. So I'm OK with it, too, but could be more flexible if needed. We at least need to make sure the current language changes, as it is too open-ended and vague.
-Mike
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 7:29 AM To: Tim Ruiz; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report
Tim's wording seems pretty good to me.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 10:06 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report
Thanks Mike. Regarding the first part, I think the following comes closer to capturing my concerns:
There may be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant script per relevant language, but in any event no more than one fasttrack IDN per relevant language.
That allows the broader concept for the overall ccNSO PDP but keeps it somewhat narrower for the fasttrack.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@rodenbaugh.com> Date: Thu, August 07, 2008 8:29 am To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@gnso.icann.org>
Answering my own email with some suggested language, picking up on a suggestion Chuck made, and trying to define 'relevant' as Robin and I had suggested:
There may be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant language, except that in countries where relevant languages are rendered in more than one script, there may be one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant script per relevant language. "Relevant" languages are defined as Official languages, or in nations where there are no Official languages, languages used by more than ten percent (10%) of the nation's population.
I suspect the 10% rule may not work for some, but let's start the discussion to get this more narrowly tailored.
Thanks, Mike
-----Original Message----- From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 5:04 AM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report
Hi all,
I have a question on this new reco of the WG: There should be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant script per relevant language.
Does this mean that the USA, for example, can have .us IDN strings in every script of every language used by a significant number of people in the US? If 'relevant' is not defined as 'significant number of users', then how? Is it conceivable that this could be more carefully drafted to consider the specific Indian concern, but not allow such a broad swath of IDN ccTLDs for every country?
Thanks, Mike
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 1:56 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report
hi,
Again thanks to Edmon for getting the report in time for this meeting - especially as we need to submit our response before the 15 Aug deadline.
As there has not been any discussion on the list about this response yet, I wanted to make sure people had seen this item.
On 31 Jul 2008, at 12:49, Edmon Chung wrote:
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.
I will be proposing that we agree to send this response in by the deadline of 15 August. So if you believe there are any edits necessary, please send them to the list for discussion as soon as possible. Except for this one item, the rest of the response is believed to be in keeping with the previous responses and positions taken over the last months.
Thanks.
a.
Hi, The document that is attached is the version Edmon just sent out with all edits accepted. As the deadline is the Friday 15 Aug, I intend to send this in before that deadline if there are not objection in the Council to its content as was discussed at our last meeting. Please let the Council list know of any objections with 24 hours of this note (by 1200 UTC 14 August). If I have not received any objections by that time, I will submit the document as the GNSO council response. Thanks a.
Sounds good Avri. Thanks Edmon for all the work on this. I like the last paragraph although I wonder whether the point about cost recovery will be picked up. At the same time I support sending this report in. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 7:38 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Fwd: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report
Hi,
The document that is attached is the version Edmon just sent out with all edits accepted.
As the deadline is the Friday 15 Aug, I intend to send this in before that deadline if there are not objection in the Council to its content as was discussed at our last meeting.
Please let the Council list know of any objections with 24 hours of this note (by 1200 UTC 14 August). If I have not received any objections by that time, I will submit the document as the GNSO council response.
Thanks
a.
I like this wording. Adrian Kinderis Managing Director AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd Level 8, 10 Queens Road Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004 Ph: +61 3 9866 3710 Fax: +61 3 9866 1970 Email: adrian@ausregistry.com Web: www.ausregistrygroup.com The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Thursday, 7 August 2008 6:06 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report Thanks Mike. Regarding the first part, I think the following comes closer to capturing my concerns: There may be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant script per relevant language, but in any event no more than one fasttrack IDN per relevant language. That allows the broader concept for the overall ccNSO PDP but keeps it somewhat narrower for the fasttrack. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@rodenbaugh.com> Date: Thu, August 07, 2008 8:29 am To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@gnso.icann.org> Answering my own email with some suggested language, picking up on a suggestion Chuck made, and trying to define 'relevant' as Robin and I had suggested: There may be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant language, except that in countries where relevant languages are rendered in more than one script, there may be one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant script per relevant language. "Relevant" languages are defined as Official languages, or in nations where there are no Official languages, languages used by more than ten percent (10%) of the nation's population. I suspect the 10% rule may not work for some, but let's start the discussion to get this more narrowly tailored. Thanks, Mike -----Original Message----- From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 5:04 AM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report Hi all, I have a question on this new reco of the WG: There should be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant script per relevant language. Does this mean that the USA, for example, can have .us IDN strings in every script of every language used by a significant number of people in the US? If 'relevant' is not defined as 'significant number of users', then how? Is it conceivable that this could be more carefully drafted to consider the specific Indian concern, but not allow such a broad swath of IDN ccTLDs for every country? Thanks, Mike -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 1:56 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council Comments in IDNC WG Final Report hi, Again thanks to Edmon for getting the report in time for this meeting - especially as we need to submit our response before the 15 Aug deadline. As there has not been any discussion on the list about this response yet, I wanted to make sure people had seen this item. On 31 Jul 2008, at 12:49, Edmon Chung wrote:
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.
I will be proposing that we agree to send this response in by the deadline of 15 August. So if you believe there are any edits necessary, please send them to the list for discussion as soon as possible. Except for this one item, the rest of the response is believed to be in keeping with the previous responses and positions taken over the last months. Thanks. a.
participants (6)
-
Adrian Kinderis -
Avri Doria -
Edmon Chung -
Gomes, Chuck -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Tim Ruiz