ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-dow123]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-dow123] Attached! Preliminary tf Report Purpose Whois and Whois con...

  • To: <KathrynKL@xxxxxxx>, <gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <metalitz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Attached! Preliminary tf Report Purpose Whois and Whois con...
  • From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 16:19:54 -0500

The report doesn't really take very long to read. The only thing new in it is 
the write up of the public comment period, which is four pages long, double 
spaced. 

I would therefore favor moving ahead with our call on Tuesday. I see no need to 
debate modification of the report. We all know how the battle lines are drawn 
on this one. Within reasonable limits of accuracy and balance - and the report 
is firmly within those reasonable limits - its words do not matter one bit. We 
all know how we are going to vote on this. We all know how the various 
constituencies in the broader community fall out on this. 

This task force's work is done. Let's conclude our role honorably and 
expeditiously and move it on to the next stage. Let's show an understanding of, 
a modicum of respect for, our limited role in the PDP. Let's not make the 
wording of the report a proxy battle for the vote on a formulation of whois 
purpose itself. Let's move on. 

Dr. Milton Mueller
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://www.digital-convergence.org
http://www.internetgovernance.org


>>> "Steve Metalitz" <metalitz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 3/6/2006 3:32:12 PM >>>
I agree with Kathy's proposal and would associate myself with David and
Tony's postings as well.  At a minimum another week would provide time
for the staff to fairly and objectively summarize all the comments
received, which has not been done in the draft sent just 24 hours before
our scheduled call.  I also find the staff's dismissive characterization
of many of  the comments opposing Formulation #1 entirely inappropriate.
If the report were to move forward in this form it would send the clear
message that participation in the public comment process is a waste of
time.  
 
Steve Metalitz
________________________________

From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of KathrynKL@xxxxxxx 
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 12:59 PM
To: GNSO Secretariat; gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Attached! Preliminary tf Report Purpose Whois
and Whois con...


I would like to propose we move the meeting until next Wednesday.  I
think the report deserves to be closely reviewed and the comments
discussed.  With so many comments, and so much new text, we all need
some time to do our work.

With thanks to Maria and Glen for the report,
Kathy






<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy