ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-dow123]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-dow123] Re: Updates

  • To: "'Ken Stubbs'" <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <KathrynKL@xxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Re: Updates
  • From: "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 22:08:39 -0500

Let's stay with Jordyn's formulation. This isn't a vote.  It is a report. 

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Ken Stubbs
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 5:24 PM
To: KathrynKL@xxxxxxx
Cc: jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Re: Updates

 

i support kathy's recommendations 

ken stubbs


KathrynKL@xxxxxxx wrote: 

Thanks Jordyn for putting this together.  Hope everyone's travels to NZ were
uneventful.

Jordayn, I see these slides as a continuation of Vancouver, and appreciate
the updating you have done.  That said, I strongly object to the line on
Slide 8 (Status of Work).  ".Recently concluded public comment period.
Received approximately 45 responses; most favored Formulation #2"

I think this leave a very incomplete impression.  If we wanted to say that
"strong comments were submitted by both sides, with leading organizations
weighing in for both formulations."  that would be fine.  

Or if we wanted to take the following lines line from our Final Report, that
would be fine too:
       "The comments show a division in the community, with 9 respondents
expressing support for Formulation 1 and 33 respondents supporting
Formulation 2.  A number of the comments supporting Formulation 2 featured
similar argumentation and structure which may be the result of one or more
constituencies encouraging participation and responses during the public
comment period."

It's a long sentence, but it is accurate and already agreed upon and
published. 
(and the issue is worthy of a little extra space and discussion).

Thanks, Kathy

<<




Please find attached my first draft of the slides for the Public Forum.

I'm glad to make further edits, or if people in Wellington want to
co-ordinate any changes, that's fine as well.

We should probably designate someone to give the presentation in
Wellington.  Any volunteers?

Jordyn

On 3/23/06, Jordyn Buchanan  <mailto:jordyn.buchanan@xxxxxxxxx>
<jordyn.buchanan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Hello all:
>
>A few updates ahead of Wellington:
>
>1) I will be sending out a proposed set of slides momentarily.
>Depending on how much time we've been allocated, these may be a little
>long and need to be edited down.  I'm glad to take comments and
>continue to try to work on these on the next few days.  However, we
>are going to need to designate someone from the Task Force to present
>the slides at the public forum, because...
>
>2) I will not be in Wellington.  I have recently decided to leave
>Register.com, and as a result will not be making the trip to New
>Zealand.  We will probably also need to discuss what this means in
>terms of the ongoing chairing of the task force.  I do want to make
>sure that we don't lose track of our work, though, so I'm more than
>willing to continue to help out as we figure out an ongoing
>strategy...
>
>Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.
>
>Jordyn
>

 

 



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy