Re: [council] FW: [gtld-com] Council gTLDs

["Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>]

>>> "Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP" <mcade@att.com> 06/04/03 07:54AM >>>
>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'm afraid I cannot agree to this, because Marilyn's wording makes
it seems as if IDNs are completely exempt from the policy principles
(bottom-up, demand-driven) that we agreed on. In fact, NCUC
(and I suspect several other constituencies) strongly supports that
same principle as applied to the addition of IDNs. The report does
contain more general language about avoiding confusion or deception.
Those principles apply to IDNs as well. 

By leaving out the language about "transliterations" etc., we
are simply recognizing that those issues go well beyond the
issue of taxonomic structure, and hence cannot be properly
addressed in this report. There is no need to say more.

>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.

My preference is that the whole paragraph be stricken. We all know
what Lynn was asking us for guidance on in December. It would be
better to simply say that the Council addressed the Board's request
with the concept of "taxonomic structure" in mind. 

>Other changes are more stylistic, such as changing "putative" to "prospective".
 
These changes are good.