[REGYCON] FW: [council] IDN mailing list

Avri Doria avri at psg.com
Mon Dec 3 18:19:10 UTC 2007


Well, i guess if the chair of the exWG objects, then we probably  
should not try to use the old list.  and should explore the idea of  
creating a new list on the basis that was discussed.  Of course if  
the council still has issues with the creation of any list for IDN  
then we should not create a list.  We probably need to decide whether  
there is council support for creating an idn-discuss list.  During  
the last conversation there were some issues brought up and I am not  
sure whether the discussion so far has addressed those issues.


On 3 dec 2007, at 09.25, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> With Ram's permission, I am forwarded a message he sent to the RyC  
> list regarding the establishment of an IDN list.
> 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."
> From: GNSO Registry Constituency Planning [mailto:REGYCON- 
> L at NIC.MUSEUM] On Behalf Of Ram Mohan
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [REGYCON] FW: [council] IDN mailing list
> Chuck, all:
> I see no reason to use the old list for a new set of discussions  
> that may be orthogonal or tangential to the original discussions.
> The original IDN WG mailing list should have been closed at the  
> closure of the prior working group.  To reuse it, and to  
> automatically opt-in its members to a new list with new rules and  
> new charters does not make much sense to me.
> The second issue is that I expect the new discussions will be  
> primarily on gTLD IDN matters; the IDN WG list was populated by a  
> large array of folks, only a few from the gTLDs.
> The third issue is that when the list is now populated with the new  
> topics, archives will appear as if the group took a 6-month hiatus,  
> and resumed its deliberations on the same topics, which would be  
> misleading (to say the least).
> Is it really so hard to setup a new list, solicit participants  
> (even get the vetted emails of members from the current list), and  
> start out?  This should not be such a difficult step.
> . . .
> Thanks,
> Ram

More information about the council mailing list