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

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

I support both.  We may want to defer the liaison assignments until
after the face-to-face so that we've cleared the air first.

K

-----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.