Hello,

A priori one would think that besides offering our own perspectives,  
one of the functions of the three GNSO reps ought to be to solicit  
views from NCUC members and convey the sense of the group within  
relevant GNSO discussions. I don't know what the practice and  
understanding was here previously, and would be interested to hear  
from people as to what model to follow.

Since Mary and I were added during Cairo, there's been a rather  
dauntingly high volume of traffic on the GNSO council list, a good  
deal of which pertains to possible decisions on immediate action  
items (see for example http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-action- 
list.pdf).  One issue of presumably strong local interest concerns  
WHOIS and the recommendations advanced by the registries  
constituency, see below.  Would people have some thoughts on this  
that Mary, Carlos and I should be conveying?

Should we as a matter of course pass along all similar requests for  
constituency views and such?

Thanks,

Bill


> From: Glen de Saint Géry <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: November 23, 2008 2:36:57 PM GMT+01:00
> To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Reminder:WHOIS discussion/next steps
>
>
>
> Dear Councillors,
>
> Reminder, please respond if you have not already done so.
>
>
> The Council agreed on Thursday 20 to schedule a WHOIS meeting.
> Constituencies are requested to work on prioritization and view  
> points on the proposed working model:
>  http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-whois-study-recommendations- 
> ryc-29oct08.pdf
> in preparation for the meeting.

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
   Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
[log in to unmask]
***********************************************************