Unfortunately, I sent Chris the two proposed topics yesterday and he was planning on discussing them with the ccNSO today so it may be too late to change topics now.  Assuming it is not too late, we would need to keep the topics to a minimum because we only have 90 minutes and part of that will be taken up by lunch.  In my opinion, topics should be of general interest to most people in attendance and not too technical.  Topics that benefit from joint ccNSO/GNSO discussion are ideal.

Chuck

From: Andrei Kolesnikov [mailto:andrei@cctld.ru]
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 3:33 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: RE: [council] Topics for Joint Meetings in Brussels

Dear colleagues,

Regarding gNSO/ccNSO meeting and sync TLDs as a topic.  I propose a different theme, because I have a feeling, that Sync TLD theme today has a very limited implication, refer to Board resolution:

Whereas, the methodology to be taken by the IDN ccTLD manager to handle these particular instances of parallel IDN ccTLDs is, in the short-term, the only option available, but there are serious limits to where such an approach is viable in practice, so that it cannot be viewed as a general solution, and that consequently, long-term development work should be pursued;

Whereas, significant analysis and possibly development work should continue on both policy-based and technical elements of a solution for the introduction on a more general basis of strings containing variants as TLD;

My recommendation to gNSO and ccNSO councilors is to focus on interesting and ¡°yet unknown¡± issues of ¡°IDNs in non-IDN world¡±.  Please find below a short list of issues to cover:

IDNs in NON-IDN world	The issues and problems for the end users, registrars and registries are very similar: this world is not ready for IDNs
Support of browsers	Overview of browsers behavior. DNS traffic cash-in: why local script goes to .COM? Why Google is my default for the IDN script / browser localization? How IDN development changes the food chain of typos, not-founds?
Support of email	Email functionality adds up to IDN popularity. Update on IETF.
IDN code: ¡°IDN-ization¡±, where to stop?	IDN code §Ô§ä§ä§á://§á§â§Ö§Ù§Ú§Õ§Ö§ß§ä.§â§æ/§á§à§ã§ä§Ñ§ß§à§Ó§Ý§Ö§ß§Ú§ñ/§á§â§Ú§Ü§Ñ§Ù1.§Ô§ä§ñ§â
Community activities to get the thing done right	what can be done jointly ccNSO / gNSO to speed up IDN support on application level? What should we demand?

Best regards,

--andrei

From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 12:36 AM
To: council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: [council] Topics for Joint Meetings in Brussels
Importance: High

<<Survey for Board meeting with GNSO in Brussels.docx>>

Assuming  I didn¡¯t miss anyone¡¯s preferences, here is a summary of support for discussion topics in our joint meetings in Brussels:

GAC/GNSO meeting

1.      DAG 4, including morality and public order

o       Support: Bill, Jaime, Wolf, Mary

o       Oppose:

2.      AoC, including A&T RT and next reviews

o       Support: Bill, Jaime, Wolf, Mary

o       Oppose:

3.      RAA

o       Support: Chuck, Mary?

o       Oppose:

4.      IDN ccPDP

o       Support:

o       Oppose: Chuck,

If there are no objections by Monday, I plan to suggest to Janis that we discuss topics 1 & 2 with the GAC.  And would like to request a volunteer (or volunteers) to draft a brief (less than 5 minutes) intro to each topic including any questions we might have for the GAC.

Board/Staff/GNSO dinner meeting

1.      There are rumblings that there are some on the Board who think this meeting has outlived its usefulness; in light of that, it might be useful to discuss the value or lack of value from both the GNSO and Board/Staff perspective.

o       Support: Chuck, St¨¦phane

o       Oppose: 

2.      What do Board members understand about the AoC commitment to promote competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace, with a particular focus on GNSO work

o       Support: Rosemary, Wolf

o       Oppose: 

3.      ICANN and Internet governance directions

o       Support: Terry, Bill, Jaime, Rafik, Mary

o       Oppose:  Wolf

4.      DAG 4, including morality and public order

o       Support: Wolf, Mary

Note that I sent the attached survey to Bruce Tonkin for the purpose of getting individual Board responses and asking Bruce what the best way of doing that would be.

ccNSO/GNSO meeting

1.      DNS-CERT

o       Support: Chuck, Bill, Mary

o       Oppose:

2.      Synchronized TLDs

o       Support: Andrei

o       Oppose:

If there are no objections by Monday, I will send these topics to Chris.  Andrei has volunteered to prepare a brief intro to the Synchronized TLDs topic.  We need a volunteer for the DNS-CERT to do the same.