Thanks Avri for the information. I think that both ideas are good, so I support them. Also the concerns explained by Chuck are important to be considered and in my oppinion they deserve some discussion. Regards Olga 2008/1/15, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>:

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.

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.

I think both suggestions from Avri are good and we should work for ways to actually meet both. As far as Chuck's point, I think that our respective consistencies will be better served if the liaisons from both sides be council members who volunteer to attend the "cross council" meetings. In case there is not a volunteer we should tap on staff to cover the basis for us. Sincerely, Bilal Beiram Internet Affairs Manager Talal Abu-Ghazaleh Organization Telephone: +962 6 510 0900 bbeirm@tagorg.com www.tagorg.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 8:24 PM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] Some initial reactions from the ccNSO on the GNSO's message to Board regarding IDN TLDs 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.

For those unable to listen to the ccNSO Council meeting recording, here is a brief summary of the results. (Although I was cut-off a few times and missed parts of the discussion, I can confirm the final results): The ccNSO Council voted to send a letter to the Board regarding the GNSO's request for a joint working group to address additional IDN issues. The letter is expected to reflect the following: - The ccNSO will move forward with work on the fast track and the ccPDP and clarify the scope of the ccPDP, which will address some of the points raised by the GNSO; - The ccNSO will invite the GNSO Council to meet with ccNSO Council in Delhi to discuss issues raised by the GNSO and the GNSO's request for a joint working group, explain the scope of the IDN ccPDP, and discuss potential paths forward; - The ccNSO does not agree to formation of a joint working group as suggested by the GNSO in its letter to the Board; - The ccNSO believes that the questions raised by the GNSO in its letter to the Board can only be fully addressed through a PDP (which would take much longer than 120 days). Regards, Denise -- Denise Michel ICANN VP, Policy denise.michel@icann.org On Jan 15, 2008 3:26 PM, Avri Doria <avri@psg.com> wrote:

Hi,

While it will be another day or so before we have a copy of the ccNSO letter to the board, their meeting MP3 can be found at:

http://audio.icann.org/ccnso/ccnso-council-conference-20080115.mp3

a.

-- Denise Michel ICANN VP, Policy denise.michel@icann.org +1.408.429.3072

The letter is anticipated early next week. Staff is coordinating to propose a mutually convenient meeting time. Regards, Denise On Jan 17, 2008 2:25 AM, Avri Doria <avri@psg.com> wrote:

Hi,

Thank you Denise.

Do you have any information on when the letter will be available?

Also, is there an idea of when the meeting they are planning to invite the GNSO council to is planned for? We already have a tight schedule so I do hope they will consult with us on this.

Thanks again,

a.

On 17 Jan 2008, at 06:12, Denise Michel wrote:

...

For those unable to listen to the ccNSO Council meeting recording, here is a brief summary of the results. (Although I was cut-off a few times and missed parts of the discussion, I can confirm the final results):

The ccNSO Council voted to send a letter to the Board regarding the GNSO's request for a joint working group to address additional IDN issues. The letter is expected to reflect the following:

- The ccNSO will move forward with work on the fast track and the ccPDP and clarify the scope of the ccPDP, which will address some of the points raised by the GNSO; - The ccNSO will invite the GNSO Council to meet with ccNSO Council in Delhi to discuss issues raised by the GNSO and the GNSO's request for a joint working group, explain the scope of the IDN ccPDP, and discuss potential paths forward; - The ccNSO does not agree to formation of a joint working group as suggested by the GNSO in its letter to the Board; - The ccNSO believes that the questions raised by the GNSO in its letter to the Board can only be fully addressed through a PDP (which would take much longer than 120 days).

Regards, Denise

-- Denise Michel ICANN VP, Policy denise.michel@icann.org

On Jan 15, 2008 3:26 PM, Avri Doria <avri@psg.com> wrote:

...

Hi,

While it will be another day or so before we have a copy of the ccNSO letter to the board, their meeting MP3 can be found at:

http://audio.icann.org/ccnso/ccnso-council-conference-20080115.mp3

a.

-- Denise Michel ICANN VP, Policy denise.michel@icann.org +1.408.429.3072

-- Denise Michel ICANN VP, Policy denise.michel@icann.org +1.408.429.3072