Re: [alac] FW: [council] Final IDN Issues Report

[Annette Muehlberg <annette.muehlberg@xxxxxx>]

Bret, what would you recommend, what are the most efficient and 
effective steps for us?
best
annette

Hong Xue wrote:

> Siavash: 
> >
> > But there is no specific call on GNSO to consult ALAC(though this is not
> > specically excluded either). Note the following quotes:
> >
> > "It is recommended that the GNSO launch a focused policy development
> > process, in close consultation with the ccNSO and the broader ICANN
> > community including the Government Advisory Committee (on the public
> > policy aspects).
> > ...
>  
> These were from the "old" issue paper, which specifically referred 
> to the GAC with respect to public policy aspects in the GNSO IDN PDP 
> consultation but did not even mention the ALAC. In our Marrakech 
> meeting, I urgently asked Bret, who took pains to join the GNSO 
> Councile Meeting online, to raise this issue specifically. As a 
> result, I was added to the GNSO IDN-list, but still not a member of 
> the GNSO IDN task force. 
>  
>  
> > So, how should we proceed at ALAC? Should we work on a position paper on
> > some issues where we think end-user interests are involved and submit it
> > to GNSO?
>  
> I've already drafted a document and send to the list--ooh, the 
> admin-list. Siavash made the good suggestions and offerred to edit it 
> further. Now, we can work on this and then send it to the GNSO as well 
> as the IDN Committee. 
>  
> Roberto:
>  
> >You know already my opinion: to me the IDN matter is far more 
> important for
> >end users than other issues, like for instance the domain tasting, and
> >therefore requires full attention.
>  
>
>  
> Indeed, we'd take action sooner rather than later.
>  
> Hong
>
>
> On 7/16/06, *Roberto Gaetano* <roberto@xxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:roberto@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
>     You know already my opinion: to me the IDN matter is far more
>     important for
>     end users than other issues, like for instance the domain tasting,
>     and
>     therefore requires full attention.
>     Regards,
>     Roberto Gaetano
>     ALAC
>     ICANN Board Liaison
>
>
>     > -----Original Message-----
>     > From: owner-alac@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:owner-alac@xxxxxxxxx>
>     [mailto: owner-alac@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:owner-alac@xxxxxxxxx>] On
>     > Behalf Of shahshah@xxxxxxxx <mailto:shahshah@xxxxxxxx>
>     > Sent: 16 July 2006 08:46
>     > To: Bret Fausett
>     > Cc: alac@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:alac@xxxxxxxxx>
>     > Subject: Re: [alac] FW: [council] Final IDN Issues Report
>     >
>     > I hope everyone reads the Report. It acknowledges that the
>     > end-users have something at stake in this matter in the following:
>     >
>     > " How could an introduction of internationalized equivalents
>     > of existing TLDs best promote competition and choice for
>     end-users? "
>     >
>     > But there is no specific call on GNSO to consult ALAC(though
>     > this is not specically excluded either). Note the following quotes:
>     >
>     > "It is recommended that the GNSO launch a focused policy
>     > development process, in close consultation with the ccNSO and
>     > the broader ICANN community including the Government Advisory
>     > Committee (on the public policy aspects).
>     > ...
>     > It follows that the issues listed in this report are of a
>     > broad nature, reaching beyond the remit of the GNSO and
>     > calling for necessary expert advice from other ICANN entities
>     > such as the ccNSO, the GAC, and the President's Advisory
>     > Committee for IDNs."
>     >
>     > So, how should we proceed at ALAC? Should we work on a
>     > position paper on some issues where we think end-user
>     > interests are involved and submit it to GNSO? Should we task
>     > our liaison officer with GNSO to address and emphasize
>     > certain issues that we identify? Should we ask to have a
>     > specific representative at such discussions? Earlier Brett
>     > asked for volunteers from ALAC to participate in a focused
>     > committee work. What came of that?
>     >
>     > Siavash
>     >
>     > > Use this one instead.
>     > >
>     > >         Bret
>     > >
>     > > -----Original Message-----
>     > > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>     <mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>     > > [mailto: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>     <mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]
>     > > On
>     > > Behalf Of Denise Michel
>     > > Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 8:52 PM
>     > > To: GNSO Council
>     > > Subject: [council] Final IDN Issues Report
>     > >
>     > > Hello All.
>     > >
>     > > Please disregard the IDN Issues Report attached to the
>     > previous email.
>     > > The attached IDN Issues Report should be considered
>     > "final," and will
>     > > be posted on the website and discussed at the next Council
>     meeting.
>     > >
>     > > This version includes the final General Counsel's opinion.  I
>     > > apologize for any confusion this may have caused.
>     > >
>     > > Regards.
>     > >
>     > > Denise
>     > >
>     > > Denise Michel
>     > > Vice President, Policy Development
>     > > ICANN
>     > > denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx>
>     > > +1-408-404-8400 direct
>     > > +1-408-429-3072 mobile
>     > >
>     > >
>     > >
>     >
>     >
>     > *************************************************
>     > IPM/IRNIC
>     > P.O.Box 19395-5564, Shahid Bahonar Sq.
>     > Tehran 19548, Iran
>     > Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80; 82 80 81, ext 113
>     > Cell: (+98 912)104 2501
>     > Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00
>     > Email: shahshah@xxxxxxxx <mailto:shahshah@xxxxxxxx>,
>     shahshah@xxxxxx <mailto:shahshah@xxxxxx>, shahshah@xxxxxxxxx
>     <mailto:shahshah@xxxxxxxxx>
>     > *************************************************