Re: [jig] RE: JIG Public session in Beijing

[Kristina Nordstrom <kristina.nordstrom@xxxxxxxxx>]

Edmon, I am sorry about the misunderstanding, I was not aware of the clash. We 
had the session scheduled for 16:00 originally but were asked by the meetings 
team to move it to 16:30 in order for them to get the schedule together. The 
changes might not be reflected on the full schedule yet.

Kind regards,
Kristina


From: Edmon Chung <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 1:03 PM
To: Kristina Nordström 
<kristina.nordstrom@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:kristina.nordstrom@xxxxxxxxx>>, Glen de 
Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Glen@xxxxxxxxx>>, Bart Boswinkel 
<bart.boswinkel@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bart.boswinkel@xxxxxxxxx>>, Julia Charvolen 
<julia.charvolen@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:julia.charvolen@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: 'Jian Zhang' <jian@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jian@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
"jig@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jig@xxxxxxxxx>" <jig@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jig@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [jig] RE: JIG Public session in Beijing

Ok... just to note... the issue of conflicting time was raised in our February 
meeting so this is not a new request...

Please go ahead to update the title and description first and will work to see 
how we could best work with the schedule.

Is it also not possible to move the session up 30min?  Looking at the schedule, 
that seems to be an open slot?...

Edmon




From: owner-jig@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-jig@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-jig@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kristina Nordstrom
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 6:58 PM
To: Edmon Chung; Glen de Saint Géry; Bart Boswinkel; Julia Charvolen
Cc: 'Jian Zhang'; jig@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jig@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [jig] RE: JIG Public session in Beijing

Hi Edmon, all,

I am sorry but the schedule is closed and we can't put in any new sessions. We 
will have to figure out how to deal with the slot we have, 16:30-18:15.

Please let me know if you want me to update the title and description, that 
should still be possible.

Best,
Kristina


From: Edmon Chung <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 12:25 AM
To: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Glen@xxxxxxxxx>>, Bart Boswinkel 
<bart.boswinkel@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bart.boswinkel@xxxxxxxxx>>, Julia Charvolen 
<julia.charvolen@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:julia.charvolen@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: 'Jian Zhang' <jian@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jian@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
"jig@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jig@xxxxxxxxx>" <jig@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jig@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [jig] RE: JIG Public session in Beijing


Ah ok.
In that case, suggest going back to the suggestion during our call yesterday, 
to split up the session:

1. Public session (on Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs): Monday 16:00-17:00 
(moved up 30min from original slot)
2. WG session (also open): Wednesday before the 2 council meetings 14:00-15:00

Edmon



-----Original Message-----
From: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 1:16 AM
To: Bart Boswinkel; Edmon Chung; Julia Charvolen
Cc: 'Jian Zhang'; gnso-secs@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-secs@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: JIG Public session in Beijing
Dear Edmon,
Yes, it will overlap with the GNSO Council session and the Council leadership
has requested that there be no overlapping sessions.
I will refer your request for meeting changes to the name and the day to the
meeting team.
Thanks so much .
Kind regards,
Glen
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Bart Boswinkel
Envoyé : mardi 26 mars 2013 17:53
À : Edmon Chung; Julia Charvolen; Glen de Saint Géry Cc : 'Jian Zhang';
jig@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jig@xxxxxxxxx> Objet : Re: JIG Public session in Beijing
Hi Edmon,
This wil overlap with the ccNSO meeting and Council meeting on Wednesday
Kind regards, Bart
On 3/26/13 5:49 PM, "Edmon Chung" 
<edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> Hi Julia, Bart and Glen,
>
>Following up with the room allocation/schedule for the JIG sessions in
>Beijing from the discussions on the call.
>
>Currently the session is scheduled for:
>Joint ccNSO / GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG)
>Date: 8 April 2013 - 16:30 - 18:15
>Room: Function 8AB
>
>Currently, the session on Monday overlaps with the APRALO Roundtable on
>IDN TLDs.
>I wonder if it is possible to move it to:
>
>WEDNESDAY, 10 April
>1530-1700 in Function 8AB
>
>Also, as sent earlier in the email to the WG mailing list and discussed
>in the call, would like to change the session title and description to:
>
>===============================================================
========
>Acceptance of IDN TLDs: Community Recommendations for ICANN Actions
>===============================================================
========
>
>Based on practical operational experience, not all systems (e.g.
>browsers, spam filters, registration databases, user profiles, ISPs,
>etc.) work seamlessly when new TLDs are added.  Users may experience
>failures in resolution or other issues with newer TLDs, which in turn
>impacts consumer trust on the DNS.  The issue of the Universal
>Acceptance of TLDs (Top-Level Domains) is critically related to the
>introduction of new gTLDs, as well as the introduction of IDN ccTLDs.
>
>This session will focus on the 4 key recommendations from the working
>group to address the issue:
>
>A. Recommend IDN TLD operators (including IDN ccTLD, IDN gTLD and IDN
>gTLD Accredited Registrars) to support Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs
>in their own systems
>
>B. Allocate specific resources for the advocacy of Universal Acceptance
>beyond the development of informational materials and toolkits
>
>C. Development of informative reference materials for new IDN TLDs
>(including gTLD and ccTLD) to handle issues of Universal Acceptance
>
>D. Direct efforts, lead by staff, with the participation from the
>community, for further studies to investigate the scope of the issue
>and what other services or actions could be taken by ICANN to support
>the Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs beyond outreach and awareness
>campaigns
>
>Who should attend?
>Registrars and Registries, New gTLD Applicants, New IDN ccTLDs.
>
>===============================================================
========
>
>Edmon
>
>
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6199 - Release Date: 03/23/13



________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6199 - Release Date: 03/23/13