The second group would need to be an ICANN group rather than an SO group so that there is balanced representation across all interested/impacted parties with no skewing of participation by any subset of SO's or Advisory Committees because the issue is one that deserves broader community involvement than is the case with the IDNC group. By suggesting the second group, my intent was to explicitly move the major concern expressed in Avri's letter regarding the issue of definition of GNSO and ccNSO name space outside of the IDNC and into a broader forum in which the GNSO can have equal representation with the ccNSO. Does that help? Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 3:12 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] draft 3 of the Proposed memo to the Board relating to 07.89 Chuck, although I do follow your logic in regard to the existing IDN group and agree the board was likely not focussed on the numerical make up of this group, I do have concerns about a tactic to have a second group discussing much of the same stuff. Can you explain more clearly the uniqueness of this second group you propose? Philip