I agree with Bilal Kind regards, Cyril Chua Partner IP & Technology Group -------- Alban Tay Mahtani & de Silva LLP 39 Robinson Road #07-01, Robinson Point, Singapore 068911 Tel: (65) 6534 5266 / Fax: (65) 6223 8762 / DID: (65) 6428 9812 http://www.atmdlaw.com.sg -------- ALBAN TAY MAHTANI & DE SILVA LLP < This message (including attachments) contains privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not to take any action in reliance on it nor to disseminate, distribute, publish or copy this message. If you have received this message in error, please accept our apologies, delete all copies from your system and notify us at mail@atmdlaw.com.sg. Unless it relates to the official business of ATMD, any opinions or matters expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bilal S. Beirm" [bbeirm@tagorg.com] Sent: 01/17/2008 02:36 PM ZE2 To: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <mxrodenbaugh@yahoo.com>; "Council GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Some initial reactions from the ccNSO on the GNSO's message to Board regarding IDN TLDs 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.