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
Olof
-----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
Avri,
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.
Chuck
-----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
Hi,
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.
a.
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.