Perhaps another option to consider for a GNSO liaison to the ccNSO could be a person who has served as a GNSO Councilor, but is no longer on council. I don't have anyone in particular in mind, but these people would be a fairly good position to understand the GNSO's perspective on this and can work with a variety of stakeholders in the ICANN community. Robin On Jan 15, 2008, at 10:24 AM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
Both points sound like good ideas to me.
Noting Chuck's valid point about overlapping meeting schedules, not to mention the heavy workload already expected of Councilors, perhaps an ICANN Staff policy expert would be the best liason?
-Mike
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 7:46 AM To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Some initial reactions from the ccNSO on the GNSO's message to Board regarding IDN TLDs
Both ideas sound good to me.
With regard to the liaison idea, one of the things we should probably start thinking about is whether the GNSO liaison to the ccNSO should be a GNSO Councilor or not. On the one hand it seems like it would be easiest if our liaison was selected from one of the Councilors. But during in-person meetings at ICANN regional meetings, GNSO meetings typically conflict with ccNSO meetings; conflicts could also happen for teleconference meetings. In cases like that it might be desirable to have a liaison who was not a Council voting member but who could participate as an observer in all GNSO meetings when there is not a conflict. Obviously, this issue needs a lot more thought and discussion but thought it might be helpful to start it off.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 3:59 AM 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.
IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@ipjustice.org