ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [council] Draft Agenda for GNSO Council meeting Wednesday 16 June 2004

  • To: "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP'" <mcade@xxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] Draft Agenda for GNSO Council meeting Wednesday 16 June 2004
  • From: "Paul Verhoef" <paul.verhoef@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:43:22 +0200
  • Cc: <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <roseman@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Kurt Pritz'" <pritz@xxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <AFEF39657AEEC34193C494DBD717922204065538@phoenix.mit>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcRSv0RipqWQRr1eSZ6vgAYZPG7UfAAAn+GwAAKHBYAABJKwYA==

All, see below

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 15 June 2004 13:35
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; roseman@xxxxxxxxx; Paul Verhoef; Kurt Pritz
Subject: RE: [council] Draft Agenda for GNSO Council meeting Wednesday 16 June 

Hello Marilyn,

> On other items of business, can we add a brief discussion on 
> the PDP process, timing, requesting an issues report, etc.
> regarding the further introduction of new gTLDs, and whether 
> it is necessary to have a PDP related to IDNs? The first item 
> has timelines associated with it, as I recall, from the MOU. 

OK.  Will check MOU for timelines with respect to new TLDs.
[Paul Verhoef] we will inform the Council on the way we foresee to move 

We also need to think about the "review of the GNSO" which is mentioned
in the ICANN bylaws.

We should think about doing are own internal review as a starting point.
Part of this would be reviewing the timelines in the current bylaws and
determine whether they are realistic in practice given that the policy
development structure is essentially industry self-regulation.  Our
timelines probably need to be looked in the context of similar processes
such as ITU standards and IETF standards - both of which have longer
timeframes then envisaged in the bylaws.

With respect to IDNs - we could probably consider that at the meeting in
KL after the workshop.
[Paul Verhoef] I would agree, it seems a bit early and the KL workshop is 
designed to give an
impulse to  the collective thinking on IDN's

> Could we invite staff to brief us on any separate, but 
> related staff level work related to the policy process for 
> each of those topics.

A good idea.  Hopefully Paul Verhoef will be able to attend as the
meeting time is more appropriate for his time zone than California.
[Paul Verhoef] I will attend indeed
> Also, since the ccNSO will be holding its first meeting in 
> K.L. I suggest that we arrange at least a "get acqauinted" 
> session. 

I will see what we can arrange - perhaps a breakfast of lunch together
one day.

I am not sure if the ccNSO Council will be in place by then.
I will follow up.
[Paul Verhoef] The ccNSO council members are now known so this should be 


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