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: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 09:49:42 -0500
- In-reply-to: <4098B16D-1CC6-446B-9C7A-483FF2ED5083@psg.com>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AchmQuXlHExxjE7gQea1gNq1BXkG4gAMQd+A
- Thread-topic: [council] Draft Initial Report for IDNC
I will go ahead and draft a motion Avri. Should I put into into the new
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 3:51 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Draft Initial Report for IDNC
I would think it would be better to have a motion in place a week before
we vote, especially for a public meeting on a substantial issue.
This can always be amended.
On 2 Feb 2008, at 16:17, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 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
> 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 meeting.
> On 2 Feb 2008, at 09:37, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>> Note that ICANN pusblished the Draft Initial Report for the IDNC for
>> public comment:
>> 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
>> 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
>> in New Delhi. Certainly, we need to provide our response to the
>> 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
>> 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."