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

["Paul Stahura" <stahura@xxxxxxxx>]

I don't know if the call happened or not this morning but I agree with
Tom and Milton below.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Thomas Keller
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 12:33 AM
To: Milton Mueller
Cc: KathrynKL@xxxxxxx; gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; metalitz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Attached! Preliminary tf Report Purpose Whois
and Whois con...

I could not agree more. Lets move forward with the current report.

Best,

tom

Am 06.03.2006 schrieb Milton Mueller:
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Gruss,

tom

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