[council] GNSO working group of volunteers conversant with the IDN issues

Marilyn Cade marilynscade at hotmail.com
Sat Jun 3 01:13:54 UTC 2006

WAIT< you can't be more confused than I am!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!







Mawaki Chango wrote: 

--- Marilyn Cade  <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>
<marilynscade at hotmail.com> wrote:

Two more points. 
I realize that we agreed to put forward three Council
however, I am rethinking the practicality of that... The
BC does want to
provide a name abut we appreciate that other
constituencies will as well. 

Then the question that comes to mind (at least to mine) is to
ask if the purpose here is to represent individual constituency
(interests) (in which care it's just fair that every
constituency be represented, if it will), or to have individuals
that are IDN-"conversant" representing the two SOs.
In fact, I have an even deeper confusion... The wording of the
Decision 4 lets me think that there is a first WG (of IDN
"conversant" indididuals, I assume Council members, the number
of which is not determined by the Decision 4), then that WG
will, among other things, form a sub-working group, "a joint
GNSO/ccNSO working group" 3+3... And supposedly, we are now
volunteering for the latter, to represent the GNSO, am I
correct? Or are we still to form the first WG whose size is
formally unknown to date?
BTW, a suggestion: could we please have at the GNSO's front
page, a link to all the temporary or non statutorial groups -
working groups, TFs, (advisory) committees, focus groups, etc.
etc. I must confess I'm incapabable to tell how many of those we
have running currently (even after consulting the web site), and
it's embarrassing.
Decision 4: That the GNSO Council forms a GNSO working group of 
volunteers, conversant with the IDN issues raised in the IDN
The purpose of the working group would be to:


(5) select three representatives to interact with the three
representatives to form a separate joint GNSO/ccNSO working
group to:
(5.1) agree on the priority issues and determine whether to
examine the 
issues as a single "joint" PDP, or as two separate PDPs
(5.2) provide a report to the GNSO and ccNSO Councils with 
recommendations for terms of reference of one or more PDPs, and
mechanisms for coordination with other parts of ICANN
The group would aim to have recommendations completed by the end
of July 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20060602/8394cfdd/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list