Thanks Edmon for preparing this. I made some suggested edits that are highlighted in the attached file that I believe do not change the substantive meaning of what you prepared; please confirm that that is true or, if not, suggest additional edits. With the edits, I support this as a GNSO statement. As Edmon states in the document, it is consistent with previous GNSO statements approved by the Council. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung > Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 3:25 PM > To: 'Council GNSO' > Subject: [council] Draft comment to the Draft IDN ccTLD Fast > Track Implementation Plan Rev2 > > Hi Everyone, > > Apologies for the delay of circulating this. Please see > attached the draft comment as discussed during our wrap up > meeting in Mexico. > > The comment basically applauds ICANN staff of the progress on > the process and highlights a few points: > 1. the consideration of variants for IDN TLDs 2. the > identification of need for a formalized relationship between > ICANN and the IDN ccTLD manager 3. the recognition that > financial contribution should be required from IDN ccTLD > managers to offset its program costs > > And then reiterates our resolution in January 2009 pertaining > the subject. > > As a reminder, the comment period closes April 6 2009, > therefore we still have a bit more than a week to consider > the comments before submitting. > > Edmon > > >
Attachment:
FastTrackImplementationPlan2 (2) - GNSO Comments with Gomes edits 26 Mar 09.doc
Description: FastTrackImplementationPlan2 (2) - GNSO Comments with Gomes edits 26 Mar 09.doc