Thanks Avri. Certainly we should spend plenty of time on the issues with fast-track that you have identified. It also might be worth some time to chat about how the ccNSO and the GNSO could communicate and work together in some respects, more effectively and regularly. Perhaps there could be a regular communication by which we stay abreast of each other's activity. Further, when they develop a policy we ought to consider its implications in the generic space, and vice versa when we develop a policy. Maybe just a standard process where we send them our resolutions and ask them to consider them and offer comments back to us, and vice versa. Perhaps a brief discussion will raise some other ideas. -Mike -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 1:36 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Agenda Items for Joint Meeting with the ccNSO Hi, We have a joint meeting with the ccNSO planned for 26 June in Paris. ths is a SO-SO meeting. Not exactly sure yet how this is going to be organized, but we ned to work out an agenda. I assume that we will want to talk about the Fast Track and perhaps other issues. Suggestions are welcome. My first thoughts would center around subjects such as; - Meaning of non-controversial in the the Fast Track process. Currently the scope of non-controversial is limited to within a region. This scope and its implication is perhaps worth talking about. - The idea of an objection process or some other mechanism for allowing questions to be raised during the fast track if an application from a territory seems problematic to the GSNO or one of its constituencies or members. - Technical, operational and other conditions in fast track approval. Are there any parallels between the IDN ccTLD fast track process and the IDN gTLD process? I welcome other suggestions. I would think 3 or 4 topics would probably be sufficient. Thanks a.