[council] Some initial reactions from the ccNSO on the GNSO's message to Board regarding IDN TLDs

[Olga Cavalli]

Thanks Avri for the information.

I think that both ideas are good, so I support them.

Also the concerns explained by Chuck are important to be considered and in
my oppinion they deserve some discussion.

Regards
Olga


2008/1/15, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>:
>
>
> Both ideas sound good to me.
>
> With regard to the liaison idea, one of the things we should probably
> start thinking about is whether the GNSO liaison to the ccNSO should be
> a GNSO Councilor or not.  On the one hand it seems like it would be
> easiest if our liaison was selected from one of the Councilors.  But
> during in-person meetings at ICANN regional meetings, GNSO meetings
> typically conflict with ccNSO meetings; conflicts could also happen for
> teleconference meetings. In cases like that it might be desirable to
> have a liaison who was not a Council voting member but who could
> participate as an observer in all GNSO meetings when there is not a
> conflict.  Obviously, this issue needs a lot more thought and discussion
> but thought it might be helpful to start it off.
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org]
> On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 3:59 AM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: [council] Some initial reactions from the ccNSO on the GNSO's
> message to Board regarding IDN TLDs
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I have been having some background discussions with Chris Desspain, the
> chair of the ccNSO council, and others regarding the GNSO
> council's message and request to the Board.    At, at least, the first
> reading, there has been some level of concern on his part and the part
> of others in the ccNSO community with our message to the Board relating
> to IDN TLDs.  It has been interpreted by some as indicating that the
> GNSO is against the fast track and against IDNs.  While I tried to
> explain that this is neither what was written nor what was intended, it
> does seem to be interpreted that way by some.  The ccNSO
> is meeting today to discuss a reaction to the GNSO council's message.
> I expect to have more information on that tomorrow.
>
> Regardless of what happens with their reaction two possibilities have
> come out of the discussion:
>
> - the possibility of a face to face meeting between the two councils in
> New Delhi to discuss some of the different perspectives on the IDN TLD
> issue
>
> - the exchange of liaisons between the two councils, so that in the
> future there would be a better understanding of each others intentions,
> processes and decisions.
>
> I would like to find out if there is support for these two items among
> others on the council.
>
>
> thanks
>
> a.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20080115/548bad6f/attachment.html>