[council] Draft Initial Report for IDNC

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

That would be a good idea, but i would suggest also sending it out on  
the list.

thanks

a.

On 3 Feb 2008, at 09:49, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> I will go ahead and draft a motion Avri.  Should I put into into the  
> new
> Council workspace?
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org 
> ]
> 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 at gnso.icann.org
>> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org
>> ]
>> 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."
>>>
>>
>>
>
>