Re: [gnso-dow123] Attached! Preliminary tf Report PurposeWhois and Whois con...
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV class=RTE> <P>no,thanks for asking.</P> <P> </P> <P>But, missing close to 5 hours of work in a single day is hard to make up in terms of meeting deadlines. Easier to spread the contributions over multipole days usually. Would be like missing two classes a day, instead of only one, I suspect! :-) <BR><BR></P></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #a0c6e5 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 11px; FONT-FAMILY: tahoma,sans-serif"> <HR color=#a0c6e5 SIZE=1> <DIV></DIV>From: <I>"Milton Mueller" <Mueller@xxxxxxx></I><BR>To: <I><jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <tom@xxxxxxxxxx></I><BR>CC: <I><gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx></I><BR>Subject: <I>Re: [gnso-dow123] Attached! Preliminary tf Report PurposeWhois and Whois con...</I><BR>Date: <I>Tue, 07 Mar 2006 10:06:20 -0500</I><BR>>Mariyln:<BR>>So your losses are less if they are a day later? ;-)<BR>><BR>> >>> "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx> 3/7/2006 9:55 AM >>><BR>><BR>>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.<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>>From: Thomas Keller <tom@xxxxxxxxxx><BR>>To: jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>>CC: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>>Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Attached! Preliminary tf Report Purpose Whois and Whois con...<BR>>Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 09:36:12 +0100<BR>> >Jordyn,<BR>> ><BR>> >from my perspective as a councilor I would prefer to have it at<BR>> >Tuesday.<BR>> ><BR>> >Best,<BR>> ><BR>> >tom<BR>> ><BR>> >Am 06.03.2006 schrieb Jordyn Buchanan:<BR>> > > Hi David:<BR>> > ><BR>> > > I think there is a Council call on Tuesday, and previoiusly Councilors<BR>> > > have requested not to have the TF meeting and the Council call on the<BR>> > > same days.<BR>> > ><BR>> > > If I'm wrong in either assumption, I'm happy to schedule for Tuesday<BR>> > > the 14th instead.<BR>> > ><BR>> > > Jordyn<BR>> > ><BR>> > > On 3/6/06, David W. Maher <dmaher@xxxxxxx> wrote:<BR>> > > > Why Wednesday?<BR>> > > > This is maximum inconvenience. Tuesday at the usual time would be doable.<BR>> > > > David<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > At 03:30 PM 3/6/2006, Jordyn Buchanan wrote:<BR>> > > > >Here's what I think we should do.<BR>> > > > ><BR>> > > > >I understand that the report was distributed rather late and that<BR>> > > > >there are some concerns. We are also overdue in getting this report<BR>> > > > >to Council.<BR>> > > > ><BR>> > > > >We will postpone tomorrow's call until next Wednesday, March 15. On<BR>> > > > >that call, we will vote and the report will then be submitted to the<BR>> > > > >Council.<BR>> > > > ><BR>> > > > >If you have concerns about the text contained in the current draft of<BR>> > > > >the final report, please submit proposed edits no later than the end<BR>> > > > >of the day on Wednesday, March 8. We can use the remaining time to<BR>> > > > >discuss and finalize the changes.<BR>> > > > ><BR>> > > > >I believe this is a reasonable compromise and should help us move<BR>> > > > >ahead while addressing concerns about the current language in the<BR>> > > > >report.<BR>> > > > ><BR>> > > > >Jordyn<BR>> > > > ><BR>> > > > >On 3/6/06, Steve Metalitz <metalitz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:<BR>> > > > > ><BR>> > > > > > I agree with Kathy's proposal and would associate myself with David and<BR>> > > > > > Tony's postings as well. At a minimum another week would provide time for<BR>> > > > > > the staff to fairly and objectively summarize all the comments received,<BR>> > > > > > which has not been done in the draft sent just 24 hours before<BR>> > > > > our scheduled<BR>> > > > > > call. I also find the staff's dismissive characterization of many of the<BR>> > > > > > comments opposing Formulation #1 entirely inappropriate. If the<BR>> > > > > report were<BR>> > > > > > to move forward in this form it would send the clear message that<BR>> > > > > > participation in the public comment process is a waste of time.<BR>> > > > > ><BR>> > > > > > Steve Metalitz<BR>> > > > > > ________________________________<BR>> > > > > ><BR>> > > > > > From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx] On<BR>> > > > > > Behalf Of KathrynKL@xxxxxxx<BR>> > > > > > Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 12:59 PM<BR>> > > > > > To: GNSO Secretariat; gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>> > > > > > Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Attached! Preliminary tf Report<BR>> > > > > Purpose Whois and<BR>> > > > > > Whois con...<BR>> > > > > ><BR>> > > > > ><BR>> > > > > > I would like to propose we move the meeting until next Wednesday. I think<BR>> > > > > > the report deserves to be closely reviewed and the comments<BR>> > > > > discussed. With<BR>> > > > > > so many comments, and so much new text, we all need some time to do our<BR>> > > > > > work.<BR>> > > > > ><BR>> > > > > > With thanks to Maria and Glen for the report,<BR>> > > > > > Kathy<BR>> > > > > ><BR>> > > ><BR>> > > ><BR>> > ><BR>> > ><BR>> > ><BR>> ><BR>> >Gruss,<BR>> ><BR>> >tom<BR>> ><BR>> >(__)<BR>> >(OO)_____<BR>> >(oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of<BR>> > | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger!<BR>> > w w w w<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></div></html>
|