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

["Bilal S. Beirm" <bbeirm@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I think both suggestions from Avri are good and we should work for ways
to actually meet both. As far as Chuck's point, I think that our
respective consistencies will be better served if the liaisons from both
sides be council members who volunteer to attend the "cross council"
meetings. In case there is not a volunteer we should tap on staff to
cover the basis for us. 

Sincerely,
 
Bilal Beiram

Internet Affairs Manager
Talal Abu-Ghazaleh Organization 
Telephone: +962 6 510 0900 
bbeirm@xxxxxxxxxx
www.tagorg.com
 
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 8:24 PM
To: 'Council GNSO'
Subject: RE: [council] Some initial reactions from the ccNSO on the
GNSO's message to Board regarding IDN TLDs


Both points sound like good ideas to me.

Noting Chuck's valid point about overlapping meeting schedules, not to
mention the heavy workload already expected of Councilors, perhaps an
ICANN
Staff policy expert would be the best liason?

-Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 7:46 AM
To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO
Subject: RE: [council] Some initial reactions from the ccNSO on the
GNSO's
message to Board regarding IDN TLDs


Both ideas sound good to me.

With regard to the liaison idea, one of the things we should probably
start thinking about is whether the GNSO liaison to the ccNSO should be
a 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 meetings
typically conflict with ccNSO meetings; conflicts could also happen for
teleconference 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 a
conflict.  Obviously, this issue needs a lot more thought and discussion
but 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, 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.