<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-dow123] Agenda for Tomorrow
- To: jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Agenda for Tomorrow
- From: "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 13:29:36 -0500
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV class=RTE>
<P>thanks to everyone, including Maria who reforwarded the report to me. </P>
<P>I'm reading it, but won't be through it by today's call. </P>
<P>Happenstances of too much too late, but doing a quick scan.</P>
<P>However, I don't understand how we can vote today on a full report, since everyone
is actually still racing to read it... </P>
<P> </P>
<P>No need to respond, I just wanted to acknowledge and thank all of you. Talk to you on the
call.<BR><BR></P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>From: Thomas Keller <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>
<DIV></DIV>>To: "Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<DIV></DIV>>CC: ross@xxxxxxxxxx, gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Agenda for Tomorrow
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 14:46:26 +0200
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Hello all,
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>I just read Marias report (well big junks of it) and have to ask
<DIV></DIV>>myself what exactly we want to vote on today. In prior taskforce
<DIV></DIV>>reports the report always revolved about specific recommendations
<DIV></DIV>>to specific problems which result into a specific impact for the
<DIV></DIV>>constituencies of the GNSO. In this case however the report
composes
<DIV></DIV>>an overview over what has happend over the last years in regard
<DIV></DIV>>to whois. That of course is not the fault of the drafter (thanks
<DIV></DIV>>to Maria for doing this work) but a result of the inability of
the
<DIV></DIV>>taskforce members to produce any kind of viable recommendations.
<DIV></DIV>>Thinking about the controversial views on this matter this does
<DIV></DIV>>not come in suprise but still leaves me wondering what I should
<DIV></DIV>>be raising my hand for on todays call? Is it about the
correctness
<DIV></DIV>>of the report or about something else and what is the council
<DIV></DIV>>supposed to do with it once we have voted on it?
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Best,
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>tom
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Am 28.03.2005 schrieb Jordyn A. Buchanan:
<DIV></DIV>> > Ross:
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > The original intent was to discuss the report with an eye
towards
<DIV></DIV>> > completing the requirements of the PDP for the creation of
a
<DIV></DIV>> > "preliminary report", which we spent some time discussing
on the last
<DIV></DIV>> > call. (Unfortunately, I'm in e-mail only mode
right now, so I can't
<DIV></DIV>> > pull up the relevant language, but there is a requirement
for a meeting
<DIV></DIV>> > within 5 days of the publication of the preliminary report
in order to
<DIV></DIV>> > try to resolve any substantive disagreements or something
like that.)
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > However, as we've not yet seen the report and we're less
than 24 hours
<DIV></DIV>> > away from the meeting, I'm somewhat inclined to take
Milton's advice
<DIV></DIV>> > and defer the meeting. However, that leaves us
in a bit of a bind as
<DIV></DIV>> > I'm fairly confident that Maria will succeed in
<DIV></DIV>> > "publishing" the report in the near future, and it will be
difficult to
<DIV></DIV>> > schedule a formal meeting of the TF until the week after
next, given
<DIV></DIV>> > that many of us will be traveling to Mar Del Plata (and
some of us
<DIV></DIV>> > won't, as well). To that end, we'd probably
need to advise the council
<DIV></DIV>> > of another deviation from the PDP, but that we would
expect to make the
<DIV></DIV>> > report available for its public comment period shortly
after Mar Del
<DIV></DIV>> > Plata.
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > Jordyn
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > On Mar 28, 2005, at 5:17 PM, Ross Rader wrote:
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > >At this stage, I'm less interested in the actual
contents of the
<DIV></DIV>> > >document than I am in understanding what the goal of the
"discussion
<DIV></DIV>> > >of the report" is.
<DIV></DIV>> > >
<DIV></DIV>> > >Without a clear sense of what "the discussion" is
going to be about,
<DIV></DIV>> > >I'm not inclined to even read the document.
<DIV></DIV>> > >
<DIV></DIV>> > >Put another way, this document can be evaluated in any
number of ways.
<DIV></DIV>> > >The agenda doesn't make it clear what outcome we
expect from tomorrow.
<DIV></DIV>> > >I'd hate to be reading this with an eye for typo's and
bad formatting
<DIV></DIV>> > >if I should be looking at it with an eye for
statements I agree and
<DIV></DIV>> > >disagree with.
<DIV></DIV>> > >
<DIV></DIV>> > >The task force seems to be proceeding on the notion
that the scope of
<DIV></DIV>> > >work is well understood while forgetting that we have
recently merged
<DIV></DIV>> > >three different task forces thus creating an
environment where it is
<DIV></DIV>> > >extremely easy to misjudge the actual scope and intent
of the
<DIV></DIV>> > >conversation.
<DIV></DIV>> > >
<DIV></DIV>> > >I'd really appreciate some clarification on the agenda
for tomorrow to
<DIV></DIV>> > >make sure that I can allocate sufficient time to
understand the level
<DIV></DIV>> > >of detail necessary to have an informed discussion on
tomorrow's call.
<DIV></DIV>> > >
<DIV></DIV>> > >Thanks in advance,
<DIV></DIV>> > >
<DIV></DIV>> > >Maria Farrell wrote:
<DIV></DIV>> > >>Hi Milton,
<DIV></DIV>> > >>Working on it - it really is a behemoth, but I
should circulate
<DIV></DIV>> > >>within the
<DIV></DIV>> > >>next hour or so. Cheers, Maria
<DIV></DIV>> > >>-----Original Message-----
<DIV></DIV>> > >>From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx
<DIV></DIV>> > >>[mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx] On
<DIV></DIV>> > >>Behalf Of Milton Mueller
<DIV></DIV>> > >>Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 12:00 AM
<DIV></DIV>> > >>To: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ross@xxxxxxxxxx
<DIV></DIV>> > >>Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Agenda for Tomorrow
<DIV></DIV>> > >>Yes, I share Ross's need for an update. I would
very much hope and
<DIV></DIV>> > >>expect the preliminary report to be sent to us
today sometime, so we
<DIV></DIV>> > >>can
<DIV></DIV>> > >>read it before the call. If not, perhaps the call
should be deferred.
<DIV></DIV>> > >>Dr. Milton Mueller
<DIV></DIV>> > >>Syracuse University School of Information Studies
<DIV></DIV>> > >>http://www.digital-convergence.org
<DIV></DIV>> > >>http://www.internetgovernance.org
<DIV></DIV>> > >>>>>Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx> 3/28/2005
10:44:14 AM >>>
<DIV></DIV>> > >>Apologies for missing last weeks call. In an
effort to get caught up
<DIV></DIV>> > >>in
<DIV></DIV>> > >>time for tomorrow's call, I was hoping that
someone could update me on
<DIV></DIV>> > >>the agenda for tomorrow? The current agenda, which
I suspect is out of
<DIV></DIV>> > >>date, is only this:
<DIV></DIV>> > >>Subject: Whois task Force 123
<DIV></DIV>> > >>Comments/Agenda: Discuss the Preliminary Report to
be sent to the
<DIV></DIV>> > >>list.
<DIV></DIV>> > >>Much thanks in advance,
<DIV></DIV>> > >
<DIV></DIV>> > >
<DIV></DIV>> > >--
<DIV></DIV>> > >
<DIV></DIV>> > >
<DIV></DIV>> > >
<DIV></DIV>> > >
<DIV></DIV>> > >
<DIV></DIV>> >
> -rwr
<DIV></DIV>> > >
<DIV></DIV>> > >
<DIV></DIV>> > >
<DIV></DIV>> > >Contact info: http://www.blogware.com/profiles/ross
<DIV></DIV>> > >Skydasher: A great way to start your day
<DIV></DIV>> > >My weblog: http://www.byte.org
<DIV></DIV>> > >
<DIV></DIV>> > >
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Gruss,
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>tom
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>(__)
<DIV></DIV>>(OO)_____
<DIV></DIV>>(oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of
<DIV></DIV>> | |--/ | * milk some of it
is hamburger!
<DIV></DIV>> w w w w
<DIV></DIV></div></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|