<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Today's Meetings - comments on GNSO response to ccNSO-GAC IDN issues report</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3243" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=779432403-10022008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Thank you very much Kristina. Your dilligence is very
much appreciated. We will include your input in our session.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=779432403-10022008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=779432403-10022008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Chuck</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Rosette,
Kristina<BR><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, February 09, 2008 10:12 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
council@gnso.icann.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> [council] Today's Meetings - comments
on GNSO response to ccNSO-GAC IDN issues report<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV><!-- Converted from text/rtf format -->
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>All,</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>I probably will not be participating in today's
meetings, but wanted to send along some comments about the current draft "GNSO
Comments in Response to ccNSO-GAC IDN Issues Report."</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>It's very well-drafted - many thanks to those of you
who worked on it. I have only one general comment and two specific
comments:</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>General comment: The use of "should-must-may"
appears in some places to correspond to RFC 2119 and to correspond to the
specific question in others. If the intention is to use the RFC 2119
convention, it may be worthwhile to run quickly through the paper to have them
conform.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Specific comments:</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>p. 4, lines 10-18: I found this answer
confusing. I read the first two sentences to suggest a desire to avoid a
"post award change" (comparable to the type we've discussed in connection with
new gTLD recommendation 20), and the latter to shift the focus to contractual
conditions. If this answer is referring, for example, to ccTLDs like .tv
and .cm, then it seems inconsistent with the position that we've taken to date
w/r/t new gTLDs in which the applicant claims to target a community, is awarded
the gTLD on that basis, and then no longer targets that community.
</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>p. 12, lines 32-33 and 45-46: These answers
seem inconsistent to me.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>I'll be on line until about 8:30 AM Delhi time and am
happy to answer questions if you have them.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>K</FONT> </P></BODY></HTML>