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

["Milton Mueller" <Mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Mariyln:
So your losses are less if they are a day later? ;-) 

>>> "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx> 3/7/2006 9:55 AM >>>

There is a Council call at 2 EST/etc. on Tuesday. IF the WHOIS TF is also 
Tuesday, then that makes a 3 1/2 hour pro bono contribution day for ICANN. A 
little heavy on the loss of working time for me. 
 


From:  Thomas Keller <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:  jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
CC:  gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Subject:  Re: [gnso-dow123] Attached! Preliminary tf Report Purpose Whois and 
Whois con...
Date:  Tue, 7 Mar 2006 09:36:12 +0100
>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