[council] Issue for IDN discussion

Avri Doria avri at psg.com
Thu Dec 6 03:52:10 UTC 2007


I guess that is a good question:  Is the GNSO council, or the GNSO  
itself,  supportive of the fast track as it has been laid out in the  

Since the council is currently in the position of picking 2  
representatives for the IDNC, we need to determine to what degree  
they can support the IDNC's fast track's goals.


On 5 dec 2007, at 16.19, Edmon Chung wrote:

>> To what extent is there support within the council for the allocation
>> of at most 1 IDN in 1 Script per 3166-1 based ccTLD by methods chosen
>> by the IDNC fast track WG, so long as it is clearly understood  that
>> no other allocations may be made until such time as there is a
>> community wide discussion and agreement of any further re-allocation
>> of gNSO namespace to the ccNSO?
> The question itself may be problematic I think.  And is one which  
> the ccTLDs
> themselves are avoiding.  I do not think specifying "at most 1 IDN  
> in 1 Script
> per 3166" is a good idea.  It may appear that we have not heard  
> some of the
> sensitivities and concerns from the local communities.  i.e. I  
> worry it would
> not be seen as supportive for the fast track (which I think is the  
> original
> intent).
> I feel that simply indicating that we are supportive of a fast  
> track concept
> given that it is a more contained "experimental" process would be more
> appropriate than specifying 1-IDN-1-cc.
> Edmon

More information about the council mailing list