February 2008 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] Issue #9 resolution
by Tim Ruiz Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

No disagreement on leaving #9 as is (without Edmon's proposed changes). Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Issue #9 resolution From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Wed, February 13, 2008 6:22 am To: "Avri Doria" <avri(a)psg.com>, "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> I would like to see confirmation from Tim because he raised the concern. Chuck Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com) -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@psg.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 06:46 AM Eastern Standard Time To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Issue #9 resolution does anyone disagree? a. On 13 Feb 2008, at 16:51, Edmon Chung wrote: > I think #9 is resolved unless others feel uncomfortable. > I am ok to leave the wording as the original (without any amendments. > Edmon

1 0

RE: [council] RE: Tim's response regarding the third amendment
by Tim Ruiz Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

1 0

RE: [council] Issue #9 resolution
by Gomes, Chuck Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

I would like to see confirmation from Tim because he raised the concern. Chuck Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com) -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@psg.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 06:46 AM Eastern Standard Time To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Issue #9 resolution does anyone disagree? a. On 13 Feb 2008, at 16:51, Edmon Chung wrote: > I think #9 is resolved unless others feel uncomfortable. > I am ok to leave the wording as the original (without any amendments. > Edmon

1 0

Issue #5 resolution
by Avri Doria Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

Hi, I believe we have all accepted the rewrite of Executive summary #5 to read: We support efforts to determine the feasibility of an interim solution whereby a limited number of countries or territories designated in the ISO 3166-1 list that have special needs would be granted IDN labels in the near term provided that no IDN TLDs associated with countries or territories are introduced earlier than IDN gTLDs without prior community concurrence. does anyone disagree? a.

1 0

Response to IDNC (Fast Track) Initial Report
by Edmon Chung Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

As discussed earlier in the council meeting today, we would move forward to draft a response from the GNSO to the Initial Report from the IDNC (http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-01feb08.htm and http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/draft-initial-report-idnc-wg-01feb08.p…) The Initial Report is essentially a list of questions intended to solicit public comments. The structure of it is divided into 2 main parts: (1) selection of IDN ccTLD string for Fast Track; (2) designation IDN ccTLD manager. At this stage the Initial Report has been posted and the public comment period will close on February 26, 2008, which is less than 2 weeks from now. Another important note is that the first draft of the "Interim Report" which will include proposed answers to the questions is targeted to be drafted by Feb 29, which is also just around 2 weeks from now. Since the connection for remote participation was challenging, would like to also invite people to participate in the drafting team with this email (and to note that I believe it does not have to be limited to council members). Glen will be starting a mailing list for this and will suggest to convene for a conference call next week. So far, from today's discussion, we would be starting a new mailing list with: myself, Avri, Charles Shaban, Cary and Olga, along with some help from ICANN staff. I believe Olof and Liz has agreed, hopefully Tina can join us as well?... I will work to have a first draft of the response based our ccNSO/GAC issues paper response over this weekend. Edmon PS. Also as discussed during the council meeting and hearing no objection, noting also that the deadline for comment on the Initial Report is Feb 26, whereas our next council meeting is scheduled for Feb 28, we will be requesting for an extension of the comment period for a few days. Should such request be declined, we will attempt to complete our response over mailing list and circulating it on the council list for final review so we could submit our response on Feb 26.

1 0

Reminder - ALAC/GNSO cocktail
by Avri Doria Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

Hi Just wanted to remind people that we have an invitation from ALAC to a cocktail hour 1830 - 1930 in Agra. a.

1 0

RE: [council] RE: Tim's response regarding the third amendment
by Tim Ruiz Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

If I finally understand this correctly, the question is: a) Should there similarly be only a single IDN ccTLD for a given script for each territory or can there be multiple IDN ccTLD strings? For example, should there be only one equivalent of .cn in Chinese script for China or .ru in Cyrillic for Russia? And the current response is: Yes, the GNSO believes that there should be only one string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant script. And the suggested change to the proposed response is: Yes, the GNSO believes that there should be only one string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant script., except in those cases where one script is used for multiple languages and governmental policy makes selecting a single string inappropriate. Measures must be taken to limit confusion and collisions due to variants. I am not suggesting we don't answer the question. I am suggesting that we stick with the current response. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] RE: Tim's response regarding the third amendment From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Wed, February 13, 2008 12:03 am To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com>, "Edmon Chung" <edmon(a)dotasia.org> Cc: "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Tim, The issues report asks a specific question regarding this issue. Are you suggesting that we do not answer the question? Chuck From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 11:32 PM To: Edmon Chung Cc: 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] RE: Tim's response regarding the third amendment Yes, if we can stick with the original language in this document and let whatever PDP goes forward deal with the gov't policy issue. I don't think we need to go there in this document. Tim Ruiz

2 1

Registrar Constituency Statement with repsect to GNSO Improvements
by Adrian Kinderis Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

Registrar Constituency Statement; "After reviewing the Registry Constituency statement and discussing it with them at length, the Registrar Constituency supports that statement with respect to GNSO Improvements. In addition the Registrar Constituency support the existing Recommendations and in particular are pleased that there has been a balance struck between the contracted and non contracted parties." Regards, Adrian Kinderis Managing Director AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd Level 8, 10 Queens Road Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004 Ph: +61 3 9866 3710 Fax: +61 3 9866 1970 Email: adrian(a)ausregistry.com <mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com> Web: www.ausregistrygroup.com <http://www.ausregistryinternational.com/> The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately.

1 0

RE: [council] RE: Tim's response regarding the third amendment
by Tim Ruiz Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

3 2

BC statement on GNSO reform
by philip.sheppard＠aim.be Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

Attached is the BC statement.

2 1