RE: [council] Draft Initial Report for IDNC

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

I will go ahead and draft a motion Avri.  Should I put into into the new
Council workspace?

Chuck 

-----Original Message-----
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


Hi,

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.

a.

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?
>
> Chuck
>
> -----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
>
>
> Hi,
>
> This should probably be framed into a motion by someone for 
> Wednesday's meeting.
>
> a.
>
> 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."
>>
>
>