<html><body><div>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.</div>

<div><BR><BR>Tim Ruiz<BR>Vice President<BR>Corp. Development & Policy<BR>The Go Daddy Group, Inc.<BR>Direct: 319-329-9804<BR>Fax: 480-247-4516<BR><A href="mailto:tim@godaddy.com">tim@godaddy.com</A><BR><BR>How am I doing? Please contact my direct supervisor at <A href="mailto:president@godaddy.com">president@godaddy.com</A> with any feedback.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR><BR></div>

<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid" webmail="1">-------- 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: <A onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=owner-council%40gnso.icann.org'); return false;" href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=reply&folder=INBOX&uid=128095#Compose">owner-council@gnso.icann.org</A> [mailto:<A onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=owner-council%40gns!

o.icann.org'); return false;" href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=reply&folder=INBOX&uid=128095#Compose">owner-council@gnso.icann.org</A>] 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 <<A onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=tim%40godaddy.com'); return false;" href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=reply&folder=INBOX&amp!

 ;uid=128095#Compose">tim<B></B>@godaddy.com</A>><BR>> Date: Tue,

 February 12, 2008 9:48 pm<BR>> To: 'Council GNSO' <<A onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=council%40gnso.icann.org'); return false;" href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=reply&folder=INBOX&uid=128095#Compose">council<B></B>@gnso.icann.org</A>><BR>><BR>> I thought this was supposed to be an interim solution. A fast track for<BR>> existing ccTLDs. Agreeing to one so-called IDN ccTLD per 3166-1 entry,<BR>> for which an IANA delegation exists, is very generous. Any others should<BR>> wait for whatever PDP ensues to resolve it further.<BR>><BR>> Tim<BR><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></body></html>