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

[Thomas Keller <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Jordyn,

from my perspective as a councilor I would prefer to have it at
Tuesday.

Best,

tom

Am 06.03.2006 schrieb Jordyn Buchanan:
> Hi David:
> 
> I think there is a Council call on Tuesday, and previoiusly Councilors
> have requested not to have the TF meeting and the Council call on the
> same days.
> 
> If I'm wrong in either assumption, I'm happy to schedule for Tuesday
> the 14th instead.
> 
> Jordyn
> 
> On 3/6/06, David W. Maher <dmaher@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Why Wednesday?
> > This is maximum inconvenience. Tuesday at the usual time would be doable.
> > David
> >
> >
> > At 03:30 PM 3/6/2006, Jordyn Buchanan wrote:
> > >Here's what I think we should do.
> > >
> > >I understand that the report was distributed rather late and that
> > >there are some concerns.  We are also overdue in getting this report
> > >to Council.
> > >
> > >We will postpone tomorrow's call until next Wednesday, March 15.  On
> > >that call, we will vote and the report will then be submitted to the
> > >Council.
> > >
> > >If you have concerns about the text contained in the current draft of
> > >the final report, please submit proposed edits no later than the end
> > >of the day on Wednesday, March 8.  We can use the remaining time to
> > >discuss and finalize the changes.
> > >
> > >I believe this is a reasonable compromise and should help us move
> > >ahead while addressing concerns about the current language in the
> > >report.
> > >
> > >Jordyn
> > >
> > >On 3/6/06, Steve Metalitz <metalitz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 

Gruss,

tom

(__)        
(OO)_____  
(oo)    /|\     A cow is not entirely full of
  | |--/ | *    milk some of it is hamburger!
  w w w  w