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

[Thomas Keller <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>]

In light of this I would very much like to urge the members of the TF to 
stick with the last version staff produced. This part of the report is 
merely a summary of the comments made and shouldn't be valued above its 
very limited purpose of being a summary. Since staff produced this report
in compliance with the ICANN bylaws any further discussion on this
subject seems like a waste of time of this TF. Let's move on.

Best,

tom

Am 14.03.2006 schrieb Maria Farrell:
> All,
>  
> The criterion stated in the original public comments report was the only
> criterion applied in the selection of comments. 
>  
> Regarding the issue of publication of all public comments, it may be useful
> to recall the relevant section of the ICANN bylaws:
>  
>  b. At the end of the twenty (20) day period, the Staff Manager will be
> responsible for reviewing the comments received and adding those deemed
> appropriate for inclusion in the Staff Manager's reasonable discretion to
> the Task Force Report or Initial Report (collectively, the "Final Report").
> The Staff Manager shall not be obligated to include all comments made during
> the comment period, including each comment made by any one individual or
> organization. 
>  
> Clearly, objective criteria are required for selecting comments when there
> are more comments than can be reasonably included in a report. Staff
> explicitly applied an objective criterion in the original public comments
> report.  If another objective criterion is to be applied, then it will be
> helpful if it is communicated to us in a transparent way.  Bruce Tonkin's
> message earlier today ("Purpose of public comments in GNSO") has been very
> helpful in this regard. 
>  
> Maria
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Steve Metalitz
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 3:32 AM
> To: Ross Rader
> Cc: Olof Nordling; gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Attached! Preliminary tf Report Purpose Whois and
> Whois con...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 

Gruss,

tom

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