<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-dow123] Attached! Preliminary tf Report PurposeWhois and Whois con...
- Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Attached! Preliminary tf Report PurposeWhois and Whois con...
- From: Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 10:32:59 -0500
As a counterpoint, I find it very difficult to string out my ICANN
related calls over a period of days - much easier to schedule into one
dedicated ICANN day - it lets me hang out the "do not disturb - I'm
doing ICANN stuff" sign so to speak.
I also realize that everyone has different working arrangements so we
might want to do a quick straw poll of the group to see what works best
for everyone, and hurts the least for the fewest people.
-r
Marilyn Cade wrote:
no,thanks for asking.
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! :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: /"Milton Mueller" <Mueller@xxxxxxx>/
To: /<jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>/
CC: /<gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>/
Subject: /Re: [gnso-dow123] Attached! Preliminary tf Report PurposeWhois
and Whois con.../
Date: /Tue, 07 Mar 2006 10:06:20 -0500/
>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
>
>
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|