RE: [council] Upcoming agenda questions:
- To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] Upcoming agenda questions:
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:42:22 -0400
- In-reply-to: <1CA3A8E1-E1B4-41EB-B4CC-A1E2860A46A5@psg.com>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AciJ4WnPXYkYVYCSR5qRLvlRhySaawADbt2g
- Thread-topic: [council] Upcoming agenda questions:
Please see my responses to a few of the questions below in CAPS.
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 12:36 PM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: [council] Upcoming agenda questions:
We (Chuck, Glen and I) am in the process of putting together the agenda
for the meeting on the 27th. I have some questions:
- Is someone going to offer a motion regarding electronic voting.
- re the Whois studies discussion - is there need to invite Lorrie
Cranor, the expert who was consulted in preparing the report, to the
meeting. I have been informed that she is available, but we don't want
to waster her time, or ICANN budget, if we don't have any specific
questions for her at this time.
- On March 6 Denise reported that the Board was waiting for the GNSO
and/or CCNSO to submit a followup to our counter-point letters. Is this
something we want to pursue or are we happy with the way things are
CG: I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR US TO REQUEST A RESPONSE FROM THE
ccNSO REGARDING THE ISSUES DISCUSSED IN THE JOINT MEETING IN DELHI. IN
PARTICULAR: 1) IS THERE AGREEMENT THAT FAST TRACK IDN ccTLDs WILL BE
LIMITED TO MEANINGFUL REPRESENTATIONS OF COUNTRIES OR TERRITORIES
IDENTIFIED IN THE ISO 3166-1 LIST; 2) ASSUMING THERE IS AGREEMENT ON THE
LIMITED NATURE OF IDN ccTLDs, SHOULD THE GNSO CONSIDER A TEMPORARY
POLICY FOR RESERVING SUCH NAMES UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT THE ccNSO COMPLETES
ITS FULL PDP? I THINK IT WOULD BE A MISTAKE FOR US TO WAIT UNTIL PARIS
TO GET CLARIFICATION ON THESE ISSUES FOR TWO REASONS: 1) WE LIKELY WOULD
END UP WITH AN UNFRUITFUL SESSION IN PARIS LIKE WE HAD IN DELHI; 2) WE
NEED TO TAKE ACTION SOON REGARDING ANY TEMPORARY NEW gTLD RESERVATION
REQUIREMENTS SO THAT THE DRAFT BASE CONTRACT CAN BE FINALIZED.
Note: As I mentioned briefly at the end of the previous meeting, the
ccNSO has contacted me regarding the Paris meeting with a proposal that
we meet together on Thursday afternoon. I think this is a good idea.
What do others think?
One pending issue is whether this is a council-council meeting, as it
was last time, or an SO-SO meeting? As I understand it, the ccNSO
generally meets in full SO mode. If it is to be a SO-SO meeting, I would
like to find a volunteer to work with
the ccNSO volunteer to set this up.
CG: I THINK I AM COMFORTABLE WITH EITHER BUT BELIEVE THAT AN SO-SO
MEETING WOULD REQUIRE A MUCH LONGER BLOCK OF TIME SO WE SHOULD MAKE SURE
THAT SUFFICIENT TIME IS AVAILABLE BEFORE GOING THAT DIRECTION.
I will add this to the agenda,
but wanted to bring up the issue.