RE: [council] Some personal thoughts after listening to the ccNSO recording.

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri,

After also having listened to the ccNSO call, I agree that there is
still a lack of understanding as you point out below.  And I also agree
with you that the face to face meeting involving the two SO Councils may
be a good way forward so that people from both sides can express their
concerns and view points directly instead of hearing them second or
third hand.

Hopefully, we will see a response from the ccNSO next week.

Chuck 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 11:09 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: [council] Some personal thoughts after listening to the ccNSO
recording.


Hi

I think there has been an essential misunderstanding of the position
regarding equality on the Fast Track and in the process of deciding on  
the apportionment issue of IDN TLDs.   And while I have tried to make  
this point to Chris, I have obviously failed in doing so.

The issue was never one of an equality in numbers - though, as  
evidenced in their call, Chris insists on referring to it that way.   
The issue was related to the core issue of who is responsible for
determining the apportionment of IDN TLDs into i-gTLD and i-ccTLD name
spaces.  My feeling, and I believe this is supported by many in the
council, is that until such time as the community resolves this issue,  
it remains a community issue and neither a ccNSO nor a gNSO issue.   
Thus, for a fast track WG on methods for assign a few non contentious
i-TLDs, to actually succeed it needed to be done in a group where the
ccNSO and gNSO were represented as peers.  When Chris and Janis first
mentioned this idea to me, I had understood them to be planning just
such a WG of equals, though it was clear that the ccNSO was going to
take the responsibility of initiating the process.  It wasn't until the
charter was presented to the board that I realized he had done something
other then what I had expected and that he included the gNSO in a lesser
capacity.  And while I objected to him at the time, before the board
voted, it does not seem as if I succeed in conveying that message
successfully.

While I had originally been in favor of asking the Board to reconsider
its decision to charter the IDNC WG according to the ccNSO proposed
charter, I certainly accept the alternate proposal as put forward by
Chuck as a good way to proceed and in fact have come to believe that, at
this point in time, it is the better path to solution.  The reason for
making sure all stakeholders were represented in the Fast Track working
group would have been to allow it to make multi stakeholder
recommendations without needing to wait for all issues to be resolved
- something which I believe was in the sprit of the Boards resolution.
It is of course too late for that now.

In listening to the ccNSO call, I believe  that the critical difference
between the SOs on this issue boils down to:

- the ccNSO council believes that the decision regarding the
apportionment  IDN ccTLD name space is completely and solely within  
the scope of a ccNSO policy process.   There seems to be a belief  
among those in the ccNSO council that the ccNSO is entitled to territory
names and that it is no one's business outside of the GAC and ccNSO how
many i-ccTLDs are created.

- the GNSO council believes that any decision regarding the
apportionment of IDN TLDs is a community wide decision and that the i-
ccTLD name space will be within the scope of ccNSO policy process only
after the board has approved a recommendation on apportionment that
comes from all IDN domain name stakeholders

As things stand, I believe that the ccNSO council is interested in a  
face to face meeting with the GNSO council.   In this spirit I also  
personally welcome the possibility of meeting council to council with
the ccNSO in ND.  I say this in the hope that in such a face to face
meeting we can talk about substantial issues based on a Board resolution
that supports our recommendation for a process to resolve this critical
difference in views.

a.