Avri, Thanks for this follow up. I think both points are valid and desirable. I would certainly support them. 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@ausregistry.com Web: www.ausregistrygroup.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. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, 15 January 2008 7:59 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Some initial reactions from the ccNSO on the GNSO's message to Board regarding IDN TLDs Hi, I have been having some background discussions with Chris Desspain, the chair of the ccNSO council, and others regarding the GNSO council's message and request to the Board. At, at least, the first reading, there has been some level of concern on his part and the part of others in the ccNSO community with our message to the Board relating to IDN TLDs. It has been interpreted by some as indicating that the GNSO is against the fast track and against IDNs. While I tried to explain that this is neither what was written nor what was intended, it does seem to be interpreted that way by some. The ccNSO is meeting today to discuss a reaction to the GNSO council's message. I expect to have more information on that tomorrow. Regardless of what happens with their reaction two possibilities have come out of the discussion: - the possibility of a face to face meeting between the two councils in New Delhi to discuss some of the different perspectives on the IDN TLD issue - the exchange of liaisons between the two councils, so that in the future there would be a better understanding of each others intentions, processes and decisions. I would like to find out if there is support for these two items among others on the council. thanks a.