RE: [council] Fwd: ccNSO response to GNSO resolution

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

Thanks for the esteem Avri.  I hadn't yet seen your response so I hadn't
noticed the promotion yet!  :)

Please see my comments below.

Chuck 

-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 4:53 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Council GNSO
Subject: Fwd: [council] Fwd: ccNSO response to GNSO resolution

hi

Apologies, I dashed this off while i was editing a  Internet draft and
was not being careful about my typos.

Of course I meant as vice-chair, though it does show the esteem in which
I hold our cooperation.

a.


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> Date: 21 January 2008 18:05:10 GMT+01:00
> To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [council] Fwd: ccNSO response to GNSO resolution
>
>
> hi,
>
> On 21 Jan 2008, at 17:35, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
>>      *  Avri send a letter to Chris Dispain officially supporting the

>> recommendation for a joint ccNSO/GNSO meeting in New Delhi.
>
> when I wrote asking permission to fprward their letter to the GNSO 
> council, I also said(basd on the feedback I had already received):
>
>>> The GNSO looks forward to your invitation to a joint meeting.
>
> My next action was going to be to pass on the invitation to the 
> council list once I received it ad get the council's approval for 
> formal acceptance.  This can be done via the list if we wish.

Sounds like a good plan to me.  I would just suggest that we do it
quickly, hopefully on the list this week, so that we can maybe quell
some of the tension that has apparently developed.

>
>
>>      *   Avri send a letter to the ccNSO and to their comment site  
>> informing them that our response to the ccNSO/GAC Issues Paper on  
>> IDN ccTLDs (as requested by the Board) will not be completed until  
>> New Delhi and we respectfully request that our input be considered  
>> in the PDP.
>
> I can do so if the council desires.  I have, however, sent in my own  
> personal response to the ccNSO comment site (mailed before I  
> received the ccNSO letter), and would suggest that as co-chair of  
> the council and chair of the group writing the response that you  
> might be the better source of this respectful request.  But, I am  
> wiling to do so if the council so choses.

I would be more than happy to do this (as vice chair) if the Council is
supportive of that idea.  I think it is less important who sends it than
it is that it be sent before the end of the public comment period, which
is this coming Friday, 25 January.


>
>>      * We initiate a planning process for the joint meeting in New  
>> Delhi ASAP.
>
> Once we receive the invitation, and know the conditions of the  
> invitation, e.g. open or closed, when, formal or informal etc, we  
> should certainly start doing so.  Also note that I have included  
> planning for that that as a major agenda item for our Sunday meeting  
> in ND.

I don't think we need to wait until we receive a formal invitation and
know about the conditions of the meeting.  That is undoubtedly true
about the format of the meeting and other logistical details, but the
planning I am suggesting has more to do with having a good understanding
of our position and our goals going into the meeting.  I tried to get
the ball rolling on that with the comments I shared in my long message.

>
> Thanks
>
> a.
>
>
>