Draft Initial Report for IDNC
Note that ICANN pusblished the Draft Initial Report for the IDNC for public comment: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/draft-initial-report-idnc-wg-01feb0 8.pdf <http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/draft-initial-report-idnc-wg-01feb 08.pdf> A decision we need to consider is whether we want to provide GNSO comments on this. In particular, we could provide relevant comments from our response to the ccNSO/GAC Issues Paper on IDN ccTLDs. Because the comment period ends 26 February, we probably should decide this in New Delhi when we are talking about this topic. On a related note, the public comment period on the Introduction of IDN ccTLDs ends on 25 February. We had previously discussed whether we should submit our full response to the ccNSO/GAC Issues Paper on IDN ccTLDs. I personally support this because our response directly answers the questions in that issues paper. But we should decide that in New Delhi. Certainly, we need to provide our response to the Board because they requested it. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
Hi, This should probably be framed into a motion by someone for Wednesday's meeting. a. On 2 Feb 2008, at 09:37, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Note that ICANN pusblished the Draft Initial Report for the IDNC for public comment: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/draft-initial-report-idnc-wg-01feb08.pd...
A decision we need to consider is whether we want to provide GNSO comments on this. In particular, we could provide relevant comments from our response to the ccNSO/GAC Issues Paper on IDN ccTLDs. Because the comment period ends 26 February, we probably should decide this in New Delhi when we are talking about this topic.
On a related note, the public comment period on the Introduction of IDN ccTLDs ends on 25 February. We had previously discussed whether we should submit our full response to the ccNSO/GAC Issues Paper on IDN ccTLDs. I personally support this because our response directly answers the questions in that issues paper. But we should decide that in New Delhi. Certainly, we need to provide our response to the Board because they requested it.
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
I am willing to take a crack at a motion but wonder if I should wait until after our working session on Sunday in New Delhi? Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 10:39 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft Initial Report for IDNC Hi, This should probably be framed into a motion by someone for Wednesday's meeting. a. On 2 Feb 2008, at 09:37, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Note that ICANN pusblished the Draft Initial Report for the IDNC for public comment: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/draft-initial-report-idnc-wg-01fe b08.pdf
A decision we need to consider is whether we want to provide GNSO comments on this. In particular, we could provide relevant comments from our response to the ccNSO/GAC Issues Paper on IDN ccTLDs. Because the comment period ends 26 February, we probably should decide
this in New Delhi when we are talking about this topic.
On a related note, the public comment period on the Introduction of IDN ccTLDs ends on 25 February. We had previously discussed whether we should submit our full response to the ccNSO/GAC Issues Paper on IDN ccTLDs. I personally support this because our response directly answers the questions in that issues paper. But we should decide that
in New Delhi. Certainly, we need to provide our response to the Board
because they requested it.
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
Hi, I would think it would be better to have a motion in place a week before we vote, especially for a public meeting on a substantial issue. This can always be amended. a. On 2 Feb 2008, at 16:17, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I am willing to take a crack at a motion but wonder if I should wait until after our working session on Sunday in New Delhi?
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org ] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 10:39 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft Initial Report for IDNC
Hi,
This should probably be framed into a motion by someone for Wednesday's meeting.
a.
On 2 Feb 2008, at 09:37, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Note that ICANN pusblished the Draft Initial Report for the IDNC for public comment: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/draft-initial-report-idnc- wg-01fe b08.pdf
A decision we need to consider is whether we want to provide GNSO comments on this. In particular, we could provide relevant comments from our response to the ccNSO/GAC Issues Paper on IDN ccTLDs. Because the comment period ends 26 February, we probably should decide
this in New Delhi when we are talking about this topic.
On a related note, the public comment period on the Introduction of IDN ccTLDs ends on 25 February. We had previously discussed whether we should submit our full response to the ccNSO/GAC Issues Paper on IDN ccTLDs. I personally support this because our response directly answers the questions in that issues paper. But we should decide that
in New Delhi. Certainly, we need to provide our response to the Board
because they requested it.
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
I also think it would be better if we had the motion before, as Avri says - I would appreciate, Chuck, if you could come over with a draft mation. Norbert = On Sunday, 03 February 2008 15:51:27 Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
I would think it would be better to have a motion in place a week before we vote, especially for a public meeting on a substantial issue. This can always be amended.
a.
On 2 Feb 2008, at 16:17, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I am willing to take a crack at a motion but wonder if I should wait until after our working session on Sunday in New Delhi?
Chuck
-- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit us regularly - you can find something new every day: http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com
Thanks for the input Norbert. I will prepare a draft motion in the next day or so. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Klein Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 5:54 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft Initial Report for IDNC I also think it would be better if we had the motion before, as Avri says - I would appreciate, Chuck, if you could come over with a draft mation. Norbert = On Sunday, 03 February 2008 15:51:27 Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
I would think it would be better to have a motion in place a week before we vote, especially for a public meeting on a substantial issue. This can always be amended.
a.
On 2 Feb 2008, at 16:17, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I am willing to take a crack at a motion but wonder if I should wait until after our working session on Sunday in New Delhi?
Chuck
-- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit us regularly - you can find something new every day: http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com
I will go ahead and draft a motion Avri. Should I put into into the new Council workspace? Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 3:51 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft Initial Report for IDNC Hi, I would think it would be better to have a motion in place a week before we vote, especially for a public meeting on a substantial issue. This can always be amended. a. On 2 Feb 2008, at 16:17, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I am willing to take a crack at a motion but wonder if I should wait until after our working session on Sunday in New Delhi?
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org ] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 10:39 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft Initial Report for IDNC
Hi,
This should probably be framed into a motion by someone for Wednesday's meeting.
a.
On 2 Feb 2008, at 09:37, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Note that ICANN pusblished the Draft Initial Report for the IDNC for public comment: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/draft-initial-report-idnc- wg-01fe b08.pdf
A decision we need to consider is whether we want to provide GNSO comments on this. In particular, we could provide relevant comments from our response to the ccNSO/GAC Issues Paper on IDN ccTLDs. Because the comment period ends 26 February, we probably should decide
this in New Delhi when we are talking about this topic.
On a related note, the public comment period on the Introduction of IDN ccTLDs ends on 25 February. We had previously discussed whether we should submit our full response to the ccNSO/GAC Issues Paper on IDN ccTLDs. I personally support this because our response directly answers the questions in that issues paper. But we should decide that
in New Delhi. Certainly, we need to provide our response to the Board
because they requested it.
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
Hi, That would be a good idea, but i would suggest also sending it out on the list. thanks a. On 3 Feb 2008, at 09:49, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I will go ahead and draft a motion Avri. Should I put into into the new Council workspace?
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org ] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 3:51 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft Initial Report for IDNC
Hi,
I would think it would be better to have a motion in place a week before we vote, especially for a public meeting on a substantial issue. This can always be amended.
a.
On 2 Feb 2008, at 16:17, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I am willing to take a crack at a motion but wonder if I should wait until after our working session on Sunday in New Delhi?
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org ] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 10:39 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Draft Initial Report for IDNC
Hi,
This should probably be framed into a motion by someone for Wednesday's meeting.
a.
On 2 Feb 2008, at 09:37, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Note that ICANN pusblished the Draft Initial Report for the IDNC for public comment: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/draft-initial-report-idnc- wg-01fe b08.pdf
A decision we need to consider is whether we want to provide GNSO comments on this. In particular, we could provide relevant comments from our response to the ccNSO/GAC Issues Paper on IDN ccTLDs. Because the comment period ends 26 February, we probably should decide
this in New Delhi when we are talking about this topic.
On a related note, the public comment period on the Introduction of IDN ccTLDs ends on 25 February. We had previously discussed whether we should submit our full response to the ccNSO/GAC Issues Paper on IDN ccTLDs. I personally support this because our response directly answers the questions in that issues paper. But we should decide that
in New Delhi. Certainly, we need to provide our response to the Board
because they requested it.
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
participants (3)
-
Avri Doria -
Gomes, Chuck -
Norbert Klein