Please see my responses to a few of the questions below in CAPS. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 12:36 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Upcoming agenda questions: Hi, We (Chuck, Glen and I) am in the process of putting together the agenda for the meeting on the 27th. I have some questions: - Is someone going to offer a motion regarding electronic voting. - re the Whois studies discussion - is there need to invite Lorrie Cranor, the expert who was consulted in preparing the report, to the meeting. I have been informed that she is available, but we don't want to waster her time, or ICANN budget, if we don't have any specific questions for her at this time. - On March 6 Denise reported that the Board was waiting for the GNSO and/or CCNSO to submit a followup to our counter-point letters. Is this something we want to pursue or are we happy with the way things are going? CG: I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR US TO REQUEST A RESPONSE FROM THE ccNSO REGARDING THE ISSUES DISCUSSED IN THE JOINT MEETING IN DELHI. IN PARTICULAR: 1) IS THERE AGREEMENT THAT FAST TRACK IDN ccTLDs WILL BE LIMITED TO MEANINGFUL REPRESENTATIONS OF COUNTRIES OR TERRITORIES IDENTIFIED IN THE ISO 3166-1 LIST; 2) ASSUMING THERE IS AGREEMENT ON THE LIMITED NATURE OF IDN ccTLDs, SHOULD THE GNSO CONSIDER A TEMPORARY POLICY FOR RESERVING SUCH NAMES UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT THE ccNSO COMPLETES ITS FULL PDP? I THINK IT WOULD BE A MISTAKE FOR US TO WAIT UNTIL PARIS TO GET CLARIFICATION ON THESE ISSUES FOR TWO REASONS: 1) WE LIKELY WOULD END UP WITH AN UNFRUITFUL SESSION IN PARIS LIKE WE HAD IN DELHI; 2) WE NEED TO TAKE ACTION SOON REGARDING ANY TEMPORARY NEW gTLD RESERVATION REQUIREMENTS SO THAT THE DRAFT BASE CONTRACT CAN BE FINALIZED. Note: As I mentioned briefly at the end of the previous meeting, the ccNSO has contacted me regarding the Paris meeting with a proposal that we meet together on Thursday afternoon. I think this is a good idea. What do others think? CG: AGREE One pending issue is whether this is a council-council meeting, as it was last time, or an SO-SO meeting? As I understand it, the ccNSO generally meets in full SO mode. If it is to be a SO-SO meeting, I would like to find a volunteer to work with the ccNSO volunteer to set this up. CG: I THINK I AM COMFORTABLE WITH EITHER BUT BELIEVE THAT AN SO-SO MEETING WOULD REQUIRE A MUCH LONGER BLOCK OF TIME SO WE SHOULD MAKE SURE THAT SUFFICIENT TIME IS AVAILABLE BEFORE GOING THAT DIRECTION. I will add this to the agenda, but wanted to bring up the issue. thanks. a.