Re: [council] Some initial reactions from the ccNSO on the GNSO's message to Board regarding IDN TLDs
Perhaps another option to consider for a GNSO liaison to the ccNSO could be a person who has served as a GNSO Councilor, but is no longer on council. I don't have anyone in particular in mind, but these people would be a fairly good position to understand the GNSO's perspective on this and can work with a variety of stakeholders in the ICANN community. Robin On Jan 15, 2008, at 10:24 AM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote: Both points sound like good ideas to me. Noting Chuck's valid point about overlapping meeting schedules, not tomention the heavy workload already expected of Councilors, perhaps an ICANNStaff policy expert would be the best liason? -Mike -----Original Message-----From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner- council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] OnBehalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 7:46 AM To: Avri Doria; Council GNSOSubject: RE: [council] Some initial reactions from the ccNSO on the GNSO'smessage to Board regarding IDN TLDs Both ideas sound good to me. With regard to the liaison idea, one of the things we should probablystart thinking about is whether the GNSO liaison to the ccNSO should bea 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 meetingstypically conflict with ccNSO meetings; conflicts could also happen forteleconference 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 aconflict. Obviously, this issue needs a lot more thought and discussionbut 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, thechair 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 partof others in the ccNSO community with our message to the Board relatingto IDN TLDs. It has been interpreted by some as indicating that the GNSO is against the fast track and against IDNs. While I tried toexplain that this is neither what was written nor what was intended, itdoes 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 inNew Delhi to discuss some of the different perspectives on the IDN TLD issue - the exchange of liaisons between the two councils, so that in thefuture 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. IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
|