GNSO working group of volunteers conversant with the IDN issues
[To council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please note the following motion set out below was resolved at the GNSO Council meeting on 18 May 2006. (5) select three representatives to interact with the three ccNSO representatives to form a separate joint GNSO/ccNSO working group to: To date there has only been one response. Would you please consider this call for volunteers and let me know as soon as possible. Thank you very much, Kind regards. Glen Decision 4: That the GNSO Council forms a GNSO working group of volunteers, conversant with the IDN issues raised in the IDN issues report. The purpose of the working group would be to: (1) review the Issues Report, (2) prioritise the policy issues in the Issues Report for further work, (3) develop the terms of reference for an initial policy development process in the area of IDNs within the GNSO, (4) propose ways of interacting with ICANN groups such as the President's Advisory Committee on IDNs, the GAC, ALAC, SSAC and other related groups in ICANN, and (5) select three representatives to interact with the three ccNSO representatives to form a separate joint GNSO/ccNSO working group to: (5.1) agree on the priority issues and determine whether to examine the issues as a single "joint" PDP, or as two separate PDPs (5.2) provide a report to the GNSO and ccNSO Councils with recommendations for terms of reference of one or more PDPs, and the mechanisms for coordination with other parts of ICANN The group would aim to have recommendations completed by the end of July 2006. -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
Dear Glen, Council, I'd like to volunteer to be part of the three, thank you, Mawaki --- "GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG" <gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
[To council[at]gnso.icann.org]
Dear Council Members,
Please note the following motion set out below was resolved at the GNSO Council meeting on 18 May 2006.
(5) select three representatives to interact with the three ccNSO representatives to form a separate joint GNSO/ccNSO working group to:
To date there has only been one response. Would you please consider this call for volunteers and let me know as soon as possible.
Thank you very much, Kind regards.
Glen
Decision 4: That the GNSO Council forms a GNSO working group of volunteers, conversant with the IDN issues raised in the IDN issues report. The purpose of the working group would be to:
(1) review the Issues Report,
(2) prioritise the policy issues in the Issues Report for further work,
(3) develop the terms of reference for an initial policy development process in the area of IDNs within the GNSO,
(4) propose ways of interacting with ICANN groups such as the President's Advisory Committee on IDNs, the GAC, ALAC, SSAC and other related groups in ICANN, and
(5) select three representatives to interact with the three ccNSO representatives to form a separate joint GNSO/ccNSO working group to:
(5.1) agree on the priority issues and determine whether to examine the issues as a single "joint" PDP, or as two separate PDPs
(5.2) provide a report to the GNSO and ccNSO Councils with recommendations for terms of reference of one or more PDPs, and the mechanisms for coordination with other parts of ICANN The group would aim to have recommendations completed by the end of July 2006.
-- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
Two more points. I realize that we agreed to put forward three Council representatives, however, I am rethinking the practicality of that... The BC does want to provide a name abut we appreciate that other constituencies will as well. I am sure that the CCNSO can manage if we have 3+, for that particular function. How about we consider opening this initial working session up a bit more.. and perhaps allow 4-5 attendees from the Council? Also, the BC will still give you our names for the Council's working group on Monday and may ask for one of the names for the organizing/coordinating function, which I assume is what the 3+3 effort will largely be about? Also, can we ask for feedback from Denise's team on who will be staffing this particular effort, and who will staff the Council? Thanks. Marilyn Cade -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 3:08 PM To: GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] GNSO working group of volunteers conversant with the IDN issues Dear Glen, Council, I'd like to volunteer to be part of the three, thank you, Mawaki --- "GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG" <gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
[To council[at]gnso.icann.org]
Dear Council Members,
Please note the following motion set out below was resolved at the GNSO Council meeting on 18 May 2006.
(5) select three representatives to interact with the three ccNSO representatives to form a separate joint GNSO/ccNSO working group to:
To date there has only been one response. Would you please consider this call for volunteers and let me know as soon as possible.
Thank you very much, Kind regards.
Glen
Decision 4: That the GNSO Council forms a GNSO working group of volunteers, conversant with the IDN issues raised in the IDN issues report. The purpose of the working group would be to:
(1) review the Issues Report,
(2) prioritise the policy issues in the Issues Report for further work,
(3) develop the terms of reference for an initial policy development process in the area of IDNs within the GNSO,
(4) propose ways of interacting with ICANN groups such as the President's Advisory Committee on IDNs, the GAC, ALAC, SSAC and other related groups in ICANN, and
(5) select three representatives to interact with the three ccNSO representatives to form a separate joint GNSO/ccNSO working group to:
(5.1) agree on the priority issues and determine whether to examine the issues as a single "joint" PDP, or as two separate PDPs
(5.2) provide a report to the GNSO and ccNSO Councils with recommendations for terms of reference of one or more PDPs, and the mechanisms for coordination with other parts of ICANN The group would aim to have recommendations completed by the end of July 2006.
-- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
--- Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote:
Two more points.
I realize that we agreed to put forward three Council representatives, however, I am rethinking the practicality of that... The BC does want to provide a name abut we appreciate that other constituencies will as well.
Then the question that comes to mind (at least to mine) is to ask if the purpose here is to represent individual constituency (interests) (in which care it's just fair that every constituency be represented, if it will), or to have individuals that are IDN-"conversant" representing the two SOs. In fact, I have an even deeper confusion... The wording of the Decision 4 lets me think that there is a first WG (of IDN "conversant" indididuals, I assume Council members, the number of which is not determined by the Decision 4), then that WG will, among other things, form a sub-working group, "a joint GNSO/ccNSO working group" 3+3... And supposedly, we are now volunteering for the latter, to represent the GNSO, am I correct? Or are we still to form the first WG whose size is formally unknown to date? BTW, a suggestion: could we please have at the GNSO's front page, a link to all the temporary or non statutorial groups - working groups, TFs, (advisory) committees, focus groups, etc. etc. I must confess I'm incapabable to tell how many of those we have running currently (even after consulting the web site), and it's embarrassing. Mawaki -- Decision 4: That the GNSO Council forms a GNSO working group of volunteers, conversant with the IDN issues raised in the IDN issues report. The purpose of the working group would be to:
snip>>>>
(5) select three representatives to interact with the three ccNSO representatives to form a separate joint GNSO/ccNSO working group to: (5.1) agree on the priority issues and determine whether to examine the issues as a single "joint" PDP, or as two separate PDPs (5.2) provide a report to the GNSO and ccNSO Councils with recommendations for terms of reference of one or more PDPs, and the mechanisms for coordination with other parts of ICANN The group would aim to have recommendations completed by the end of July 2006.
Ken Stubbs wrote: Mawaki's point is well taken here !! Mawaki Chango wrote:
--- Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote:
Two more points.
I realize that we agreed to put forward three Council representatives, however, I am rethinking the practicality of that... The BC does want to provide a name abut we appreciate that other constituencies will as well.
Then the question that comes to mind (at least to mine) is to ask if the purpose here is to represent individual constituency (interests) (in which care it's just fair that every constituency be represented, if it will), or to have individuals that are IDN-"conversant" representing the two SOs.
In fact, I have an even deeper confusion... The wording of the Decision 4 lets me think that there is a first WG (of IDN "conversant" indididuals, I assume Council members, the number of which is not determined by the Decision 4), then that WG will, among other things, form a sub-working group, "a joint GNSO/ccNSO working group" 3+3... And supposedly, we are now volunteering for the latter, to represent the GNSO, am I correct? Or are we still to form the first WG whose size is formally unknown to date?
BTW, a suggestion: could we please have at the GNSO's front page, a link to all the temporary or non statutorial groups - working groups, TFs, (advisory) committees, focus groups, etc. etc. I must confess I'm incapabable to tell how many of those we have running currently (even after consulting the web site), and it's embarrassing.
Mawaki --
Decision 4: That the GNSO Council forms a GNSO working group of volunteers, conversant with the IDN issues raised in the IDN issues report. The purpose of the working group would be to:
snip>>>>
(5) select three representatives to interact with the three ccNSO representatives to form a separate joint GNSO/ccNSO working group to:
(5.1) agree on the priority issues and determine whether to examine the issues as a single "joint" PDP, or as two separate PDPs
(5.2) provide a report to the GNSO and ccNSO Councils with recommendations for terms of reference of one or more PDPs, and the mechanisms for coordination with other parts of ICANN The group would aim to have recommendations completed by the end of July 2006.
WAIT< you can't be more confused than I am!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-) Marilyn Mawaki Chango wrote: --- Marilyn Cade <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote: Two more points. I realize that we agreed to put forward three Council representatives, however, I am rethinking the practicality of that... The BC does want to provide a name abut we appreciate that other constituencies will as well. Then the question that comes to mind (at least to mine) is to ask if the purpose here is to represent individual constituency (interests) (in which care it's just fair that every constituency be represented, if it will), or to have individuals that are IDN-"conversant" representing the two SOs. In fact, I have an even deeper confusion... The wording of the Decision 4 lets me think that there is a first WG (of IDN "conversant" indididuals, I assume Council members, the number of which is not determined by the Decision 4), then that WG will, among other things, form a sub-working group, "a joint GNSO/ccNSO working group" 3+3... And supposedly, we are now volunteering for the latter, to represent the GNSO, am I correct? Or are we still to form the first WG whose size is formally unknown to date? BTW, a suggestion: could we please have at the GNSO's front page, a link to all the temporary or non statutorial groups - working groups, TFs, (advisory) committees, focus groups, etc. etc. I must confess I'm incapabable to tell how many of those we have running currently (even after consulting the web site), and it's embarrassing. Mawaki -- Decision 4: That the GNSO Council forms a GNSO working group of volunteers, conversant with the IDN issues raised in the IDN issues report. The purpose of the working group would be to: snip>>>> (5) select three representatives to interact with the three ccNSO representatives to form a separate joint GNSO/ccNSO working group to: (5.1) agree on the priority issues and determine whether to examine the issues as a single "joint" PDP, or as two separate PDPs (5.2) provide a report to the GNSO and ccNSO Councils with recommendations for terms of reference of one or more PDPs, and the mechanisms for coordination with other parts of ICANN The group would aim to have recommendations completed by the end of July 2006.
Dear Glen, The BC names will be provided on Monday. Thanks, Marilyn Cade -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 2:33 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] GNSO working group of volunteers conversant with the IDN issues [To council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please note the following motion set out below was resolved at the GNSO Council meeting on 18 May 2006. (5) select three representatives to interact with the three ccNSO representatives to form a separate joint GNSO/ccNSO working group to: To date there has only been one response. Would you please consider this call for volunteers and let me know as soon as possible. Thank you very much, Kind regards. Glen Decision 4: That the GNSO Council forms a GNSO working group of volunteers, conversant with the IDN issues raised in the IDN issues report. The purpose of the working group would be to: (1) review the Issues Report, (2) prioritise the policy issues in the Issues Report for further work, (3) develop the terms of reference for an initial policy development process in the area of IDNs within the GNSO, (4) propose ways of interacting with ICANN groups such as the President's Advisory Committee on IDNs, the GAC, ALAC, SSAC and other related groups in ICANN, and (5) select three representatives to interact with the three ccNSO representatives to form a separate joint GNSO/ccNSO working group to: (5.1) agree on the priority issues and determine whether to examine the issues as a single "joint" PDP, or as two separate PDPs (5.2) provide a report to the GNSO and ccNSO Councils with recommendations for terms of reference of one or more PDPs, and the mechanisms for coordination with other parts of ICANN The group would aim to have recommendations completed by the end of July 2006. -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
participants (4)
-
GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG -
Ken Stubbs -
Marilyn Cade -
Mawaki Chango