owner-ccnso-council@icann.org wrote on 02/04/2009
14:29:34: 

> 1) Confirmation of Approval of Minutes and Actions from Council Call

> 4th March 2009  

> 

> The Council will be asked to confirm the approval of the minutes and

> actions from the Mexico Council meeting.

I have no further comments on the minutes or actions.

> 2) ccNSO Geographic Names Working Group input to Draft Applicant Guidebook
v2

> The Council will be asked to pass a resolution to endorse the document.

I support this resolution.

> 3) Initiation of IDN ccPDP  

> The Council will be asked to:

> *   Take a vote whether or not to initiate the IDN ccPDP; 

> *   Determine whether or not to convenes a taskforce as defined
in 

> Annex B of the ICANN Bylaws; 

> *   To approve the suggested  PDP Time Line.

I vote by email to initiate the IDN ccPDP and to approve
the suggested PDP time line.
On the task force question, I'm not sure that the
advantages and disadvantages of creating a task force or alternatively,
two working groups are fully covered in the issues report. 
As I understand it, the task force requires two representatives
from each RO plus a GAC representative and can appoint advisors from outside
the ccNSO, whereas the working group model also has representatives from
RO's, ALAC, GAC, ccNSO, SSAC and a standardisation expert. This seems sensible
to me for this issue. However, it seems that going the WG route means that
we lose the ability to show support or dissent amongst ccTLDs and the task
force itself because it does not have the voting mechanisms in the task
force option. If my understanding of this is correct, I would instinctively
prefer a WG approach that incorporated voting mechanisms.

> 4) GNSO Observer

I vote for Han Shuan Lee.

> 5) Working Group Update

> 5.2) Tech Working Group
Can I remind fellow councillors that we agreed to
review the scope of this WG to (hopefully) incorporate elements of the
closed IANA WG.

> 6) Council Workshop to-do list review 

> The Council will be asked for their input to the to-do list which

> was developed during the Council Workshop in Mexico City.

Whilst the list is an accurate reflection of what
we discussed, what we have yet to do is expand how we will achieve and
measure the 'council doing well' list. There is a danger that we'll just
tick off the list as things we are doing because we can give examples of
activities against each one. I suggest that when we're next together, we
would have a discussion about what actions would result in these things
and how we would know when they are being achieved. 

> 7) Input to Board request on Constituency Day

> 

> The Council will be asked to find a solution on how to provide input

> to the posted questions.

I suggest that one way would be for someone to start
with a suggested response that we can then add to or amend until we have
consensus.
Thats all from me!
Regards,
Lesley