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

["Steve Metalitz" <metalitz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ross, that is my view.  I do not think that the criterion that comment should 
not be summarized unless it contains an argument "that we haven't heard within 
the TF and are not otherwise contained in the report" is very useful, nor do I 
think it is the appropriate criterion for the staff to apply.  Nor do I think 
it was the criterion the staff actually did apply in choosing which comments to 
summarize.     
 
Steve

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx on behalf of Ross Rader
Sent: Mon 3/13/2006 1:41 PM
Cc: Olof Nordling; gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Attached! Preliminary tf Report Purpose Whois and 
Whois con...



Steve - a second question;

You have changed the subsection titles to include the word "selected'.
Is it your view that the summary presented is not a complete summary of
the arguments presented in favor of, and against, each proposition? If
the summaries aren't exhaustive, it would be helpful point out precisely
which arguments weren't presented. Above all else, the summaries need to
paint a complete picture of the range of views and arguments submitted.
I don't agree with the request made by others to summarize each and
every comment without regard to their content, but to the extent that
commentors are *adding* to the discussion (i.e. bringing forward new
views and arguments for and against that we haven't heard within the TF
and are not otherwise contained in the report) then we should hear those
accurate summaries of those statements.

Steve Metalitz wrote:
> Thank you Olof for this constructive proposal.  Attached please find a
> few small edits which I believe would improve it. I am also concerned
> about the precedent set by failing to summarize many of the comments
> received.  I assume this will be a topic for discussion tomorrow. 
>
> Steve Metalitz
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Olof Nordling
> Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 11:32 AM
> To: jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Paul Stahura'
> Cc: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; GNSO Secretariat
> Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Attached! Preliminary tf Report Purpose Whois
> and Whois con...
>
> Jordyn and all,
> While supporting the public comments report as originally drafted, I
> have also followed the ensuing discussion and I am keen to advance
> matters. In order to do this in a pragmatic way, I have prepared a
> slightly reedited and updated version. See attached.
> Best regards
> Olof
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Jordyn Buchanan
> Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 9:59 PM
> To: Paul Stahura
> Cc: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Attached! Preliminary tf Report Purpose Whois
> and Whois con...
>
> Hi all:
>
> Based on the feedback I've seen so far, most people (including
> Councilors) seem to prefer the call on Tuesday.
>
> So we will have our next call on Tuesday, March 14 at 9:30 AM EST.
>
> During the call we will discuss:
>
> 1) The final report on the purpose of Whois.  Any suggested edits to the
> report should be submitted no later than today.
>
> We will vote on the report (including which formulation you support)
> during the call.
>
> 2) The NCUC's procedural proposal.
>
> Jordyn