RE: [gnso-dow123] Final Task Force Report on Whois Services
- To: "'Milton Mueller'" <Mueller@xxxxxxx>, <gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Final Task Force Report on Whois Services
- From: "Maria Farrell" <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 18:39:14 +0100
This may seem like a non-sequitur, but in the absence of any guidance from
the Bylaws, I have to go with the previously stated view of the task force
about the relative time allotted to the proposals. A clear decision was made
to treat the two sets of proposals differently,no task force member objected
then or since, and I reflected that decision in the structure of the report.
I agree that this is an imperfect mechanism, but I do not expect that a task
force straw poll on this issue would yield a different result.
Unless the task force is likely to collectively change its approach on this
within the next hours, then I do not believe that further delay would be
If I do not see on this list a majority of task force members who wish to
change the report again, then I will instruct Glen to commence the Task
Force vote tomorrow morning, 0900 CET.
As the three days alotted for voting would include non-working days (i.e.
Thursday, Friday and Saturday), the vote will finish on Monday, 12 March at
If, on the other hand, a majority of task force members do wish to change
the report, I would suggest that the task force reconvene in conference call
to decide how the report sections should be ordered. I will be happy to
facilitate such a call.
All the best, Maria
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 10:54 PM
To: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Maria Farrell
Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Final Task Force Report on Whois Services
>>> "Maria Farrell" <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> 3/6/2007 1:32 PM >>>
>FYI, below is the agreed Task Force summary of the call when the status
>of this proposal was discussed on 18 December, 2006.
>A distinction was made by the chair and agreed by the task force about
>the different status of the OPoC/Special Circumstances proposals and
>the proposal made by Avri/Milton/Wendy and by Marilyn.
Maria, this is a complete non sequitur. We agreed "not to spend significant
time discussing" our proposal on a specific teleconference
-- but we did discuss it. If the "special circumstances proposal" is
included in the main body of the report because we discussed it, then the
others have to be included too.
>From a fairness and tidyness standpoint, neither should be in the main
body of the report.