[council] FW: [gtld-com] Council gTLDs
Philip, and other Councilors
I would prefer that
we have at least an acknowledgement of the importance of IDNs, even though we
are not addressing them in this advice. I offer for consideration a
sentence about future consideration of IDNs, and a mere acknowledgement of their
importance. I think we will look somewhat
naive if we don't at least note
that they are important and may be the subject of future policy making.I know that some might say that the Board didn't ask us
about IDNs, but we are, after all, Council, and can
provide some extra value
when we believe it relevant. :-)
Secondly, I have added a possible sentence which describes that there was
no consensus in particular around the discussion of the meaning of the word
"structured".
This was merely an effort to further make
it clear that while there was a good deal of discussion, there was no agreement.
That should help further to capture the input from some of the members of
Council.
Other changes are more stylistic, such as
changing "putative" to "prospective".
-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be] Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 5:50 AM To: Council gTLds Subject: [gtld-com] Council gTLDs Thank you all for your comments and suggestions on version 5
of the committee's conclusions. I have attempted to included all of these in the
attached version 6 which is submitted for adoption at the next Council
meeting.
Important changes from the previous version:
- following the Council resolution, separation of
objectives in expanding the name space AND criteria for
future registries. The objectives are based on previous Council or
Board conclusions. This should overcome some of the concerns about applicability
raised by Tom, Bruce, Chun et al.
- deletion of all references to IDNs as requested by Chun and
others. If anyone believes this is too draconian and believe some statement is
required please make a proposal.
- editing of the paragraph describing the different
perspectives of Council members as to the interpretation of structured. I
believe this is an important clarification, as the Board may well have similar
diversity.
Please remember this is a committee report recommending future
work. It is not definitive. It also seeks to include the opinions of each
participating group.
I hope that this sixth version will be acceptable to
Council.
Philip gTLDS committee conclusions v6.doc |