ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [council] Draft Initial Report for IDNC

  • To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] Draft Initial Report for IDNC
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 16:17:24 -0500
  • In-reply-to: <141AEE71-52F9-464D-9B72-EC38769A223E@psg.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AchlwsOF/gxO1ivnRRqr6HR7klazOwAHiFXg
  • Thread-topic: [council] Draft Initial Report for IDNC

I am willing to take a crack at a motion but wonder if I should wait
until after our working session on Sunday in New Delhi?


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 10:39 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Draft Initial Report for IDNC


This should probably be framed into a motion by someone for Wednesday's


On 2 Feb 2008, at 09:37, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Note that ICANN pusblished the Draft Initial Report for the IDNC for 
> public comment: 
> http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/draft-initial-report-idnc-wg-01fe
> b08.pdf
> A decision we need to consider is whether we want to provide GNSO 
> comments on this.  In particular, we could provide relevant comments
> from our response to the ccNSO/GAC Issues Paper on IDN ccTLDs.   
> Because the comment period ends 26 February, we probably should decide

> this in New Delhi when we are talking about this topic.
> On a related note, the public comment period on the Introduction of 
> IDN ccTLDs ends on 25 February.  We had previously discussed whether 
> we should submit our full response to the ccNSO/GAC Issues Paper on 
> IDN ccTLDs.  I personally support this because our response directly 
> answers the questions in that issues paper.  But we should decide that

> in New Delhi.  Certainly, we need to provide our response to the Board

> because they requested it.
> Chuck Gomes
> "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to 
> which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,

> confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any 
> unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. 
> If you have received this message in error, please notify sender 
> immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."

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