ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] Some initial reactions from the ccNSO on the GNSO's message to Board regarding IDN TLDs

  • To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Some initial reactions from the ccNSO on the GNSO's message to Board regarding IDN TLDs
  • From: "Olga Cavalli" <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:32:12 -0300
  • Cc: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; bh=YoPHOlIa0vU1qOx/Dj3+0jzpeDlWhDhszH2ohQnnhbM=; b=EqomdYa2NARwZQB+XeQdI9M49LXkayavAsp9zTOjA/Ersj9QVMUdVRBNeq/TpcaGndStz26L6o28qMPMR14OpxUDwQsgF1hOOztKqMQgaCA+XZbj7PhkcAvxFp9Yg68ypNGegcPWSiHPovYXd3/HKHZ0cVn0kpAS0GkzDGG4zPc=
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=RgG+b66QMXfL6ZY3dbfz9YZZTlSWcbO8uSzmLofrhMDFypuXZgBcRbPuLs9CDSunnbwZ4Uq+JZOrkItRKAZNLmT8L1zbEUE01IHNiqR6BnD2R8nqVHHoMhjydn3DATsL4j2Ubt1JSm51mrb1GD5zUlS1pmBI7QxVnS+gicLTJPI=
  • In-reply-to: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07021DB2A8@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <CCBFEBFD-FB82-4A03-BBF7-1DCFF015E6B7@psg.com> <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07021DB2A8@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Thanks Avri for the information.

I think that both ideas are good, so I support them.

Also the concerns explained by Chuck are important to be considered and in
my oppinion they deserve some discussion.

Regards
Olga


2008/1/15, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>
> Both ideas sound good to me.
>
> With regard to the liaison idea, one of the things we should probably
> start thinking about is whether the GNSO liaison to the ccNSO should be
> a GNSO Councilor or not.  On the one hand it seems like it would be
> easiest if our liaison was selected from one of the Councilors.  But
> during in-person meetings at ICANN regional meetings, GNSO meetings
> typically conflict with ccNSO meetings; conflicts could also happen for
> teleconference meetings. In cases like that it might be desirable to
> have a liaison who was not a Council voting member but who could
> participate as an observer in all GNSO meetings when there is not a
> conflict.  Obviously, this issue needs a lot more thought and discussion
> but thought it might be helpful to start it off.
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 3:59 AM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: [council] Some initial reactions from the ccNSO on the GNSO's
> message to Board regarding IDN TLDs
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I have been having some background discussions with Chris Desspain, the
> chair of the ccNSO council, and others regarding the GNSO
> council's message and request to the Board.    At, at least, the first
> reading, there has been some level of concern on his part and the part
> of others in the ccNSO community with our message to the Board relating
> to IDN TLDs.  It has been interpreted by some as indicating that the
> GNSO is against the fast track and against IDNs.  While I tried to
> explain that this is neither what was written nor what was intended, it
> does seem to be interpreted that way by some.  The ccNSO
> is meeting today to discuss a reaction to the GNSO council's message.
> I expect to have more information on that tomorrow.
>
> Regardless of what happens with their reaction two possibilities have
> come out of the discussion:
>
> - the possibility of a face to face meeting between the two councils in
> New Delhi to discuss some of the different perspectives on the IDN TLD
> issue
>
> - the exchange of liaisons between the two councils, so that in the
> future there would be a better understanding of each others intentions,
> processes and decisions.
>
> I would like to find out if there is support for these two items among
> others on the council.
>
>
> thanks
>
> a.
>
>
>


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>