RE: [gnso-dow123] Proposed change #7

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> This approach is really just pushing off the problem for later.

That's one way to characterize it. However, the PDP expressly
allows/calls for this:

7. Task Forces

a. Role of Task Force. If a task force is created, its role will
generally be to (i) gather information detailing the positions of
formal constituencies and provisional constituencies, if any, within
the GNSO; and (ii) otherwise obtain relevant information that will
enable the Task Force Report to be as complete and informative as
possible.

The task force shall not have any formal decision-making authority.
Rather, the role of the task force shall be to gather information that
will document the positions of various parties or groups as
specifically and comprehensively as possible, thereby enabling the
Council to have a meaningful and informed deliberation on the issue.

We are so far off from the timeline on this issue that, IMHO, putting
the report together with the recommendation as is and with position
statements attached makes sense at this point, and is completely in
line with the PDP.

Tim

 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Proposed change #7
From: "Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, August 31, 2005 11:45 am
To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Mansourkia,Magnolia (Maggie)" <maggie.mansourkia@xxxxxxx>, Steve
Metalitz <metalitz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Whois TF mailing list
<gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

  This approach is really just pushing off the problem for later.  Since
we delayed the publication of the report for a week in order to try to
decide which of the changes the TF found acceptable, I don't believe we
should take the blanket position that we're not going to accept any of
these changes (including those that seem to have broad or unanimous
support).  Let's make some use of this week and identify the areas
where we can make changes prior to publishing this.  That way we can
focus public comments on the areas where there may be significant
outstanding issues. 

 
Jordyn 

 

 
 
On Aug 31, 2005, at 12:41 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
  
Perhaps I misunderstood Tom's intent on his response to #1. I took his
comment/suggestion to refer to ALL changes. Leave the recommendation as
is, add the constituency statements to the report, etc.. In any case,
that's what I was agreeing with. 
  
Tim 
  
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Proposed change #7
From: "Mansourkia, Magnolia (Maggie)" <maggie.mansourkia@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, August 31, 2005 10:56 am
To: "Mansourkia, Magnolia (Maggie)" <maggie.mansourkia@xxxxxxx>, Steve
Metalitz <metalitz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Jordyn A. Buchanan"
<jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Whois TF mailing list
<gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

 
 
 Sorry folks.  I missed one, so I have slight a revision.   
 
 I agree with Tom on #1 (leave it as is and open it for comment). 
Disagree with change #2 since we have not yet taken up the tiered
access issue, and accept all remaining proposals. 
 
 Thanks, Maggie 
 
 -----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Mansourkia, Magnolia (Maggie)
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 11:52 AM
To: Steve Metalitz; Jordyn A. Buchanan; Whois TF mailing list
Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Proposed change #7 
 
 Same here. 
 
 -----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Steve Metalitz
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 11:09 AM
To: Jordyn A. Buchanan; Whois TF mailing list
Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Proposed change #7 
 
 I could support (or at least accept) all 7 of the changes, except #2.  

 
 Steve Metalitz 
 
 
 
   From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jordyn A. Buchanan
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 5:23 PM
To: Whois TF mailing list
Subject: [gnso-dow123] Proposed change #7 This change is from the ISPCP.
 This change would add a new Step Six to the guidance on the procedure. 
The new section would read as follows:  
 
 
 
 Step Six:  Ongoing Review 
 With substantial input from the relevant registries or registrars,
together with all constituencies, there should be a review of the pros
and cons of how the process worked, and the development of revisions
designed to make the process better and more efficient, should the need
arise again at some point in the future.[JAB1]  
 
   
 
  [JAB1]