RE: [council] draft 3 of the Proposed memo to the Board relating to 07.89
- To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] draft 3 of the Proposed memo to the Board relating to 07.89
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 10:40:43 -0500
- In-reply-to: <002501c84de0$42786a60$e601a8c0@PSEVO>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AchNZeKspTfo45ZqRAC8tIbL3qJ6QAAJ5xqwABSSWYAAD4p+sA==
- Thread-topic: [council] draft 3 of the Proposed memo to the Board relating to 07.89
The second group would need to be an ICANN group rather than an SO group
so that there is balanced representation across all interested/impacted
parties with no skewing of participation by any subset of SO's or
Advisory Committees because the issue is one that deserves broader
community involvement than is the case with the IDNC group. By
suggesting the second group, my intent was to explicitly move the major
concern expressed in Avri's letter regarding the issue of definition of
GNSO and ccNSO name space outside of the IDNC and into a broader forum
in which the GNSO can have equal representation with the ccNSO.
Does that help?
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 3:12 AM
To: 'Council GNSO'
Subject: RE: [council] draft 3 of the Proposed memo to the Board
relating to 07.89
although I do follow your logic in regard to the existing IDN group and
agree the board was likely not focussed on the numerical make up of this
group, I do have concerns about a tactic to have a second group
discussing much of the same stuff.
Can you explain more clearly the uniqueness of this second group you