ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

Avri, Chuck, all,
Breaking news: The deadline for comments to the IDN ccTLD Issues Report has
just been extended from 25 January until 22 February!
Very best regards

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: den 22 januari 2008 02:04
To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO
Subject: RE: [council] Fwd: ccNSO response to GNSO resolution


The Board requested that the GNSO respond to ccNSO/GAC Issues Report on
in IDN ccTLDs.  It seems reasonable to assume that the Board requested
our input for use by the ccNSO; I honestly do not think that Board
members are directly interested in our input except where it can
constructively help the ccNSO process.  The questions that are asked in
the paper relate very closely to the ccNSO's PDP; in fact, it is my
belief that they were written for that purpose. 

That said, informing Bart is certainly a good thing to do.  I would also
suggest that we inform Chris because, as chair of the ccNSO, he is
undoubtedly working very closely with Bart in development of the issues
report.  Finally, because the Board initiated the request, it would seem
appropriate to notify them of our anticipated completion date.

I was not in any way suggesting that we ask Bart to delay his work but
rather to notify him that our input was coming so that he could
hopefully anticipate it and plan for it because I sincerely believe that
we will be providing some input into their process that they will take
into consideration.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 7:42 PM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Fwd: ccNSO response to GNSO resolution


Personally, the more I think about it, the more I think it might be
sufficient to inform Bart Boswnkle, the staff member responsible the
issues report  of when we believe our response to the Board will be
available so that he can figure this in, as he wishes, to his work and
his schedule.

The report  we are working on is not specifically meant as an input for
the ccNSO PDP but as a response to the Board, and I wonder about the
wisdom of having it stand in the role of comment to the ccNSO PDP.  The
GNSO Council could certainly submit something specific in comment if we
thought that was appropriate, though it may be more effective for
various members and constituencies to do so individually  at this point.
Once we are ready with the response to the Board, we certainly can make
a copy available to Bart.

Further, as I do not believe we will be ready until the meeting on 13
Feb, I think it would be asking a lot to ask him to wait for our input.
Of course the sooner we publish a draft, the sooner people will have an
idea of the direction of the response.  That in itself may be helpful.


On 21 Jan 2008, at 23:27, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

>> 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.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>