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

[Thomas Keller <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>]

As do I.

Best,

tom

Am 07.03.2006 schrieb David W. Maher:
> I vote for Tuesday - usual time
> David Maher
> 
> At 09:32 AM 3/7/2006, Ross Rader wrote:
> >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
> >>     >
> >>     >
> >>     >
> >>     >
> 
> 
> 

Gruss,

tom

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