RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Meeting Summary - 14 May

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

The document today was not intended to be cumulative.   I planned to
discuss the proposals in the order in which they were submitted - yours
was first on the agenda.  You are correct.


________________________________

        From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 5:22 PM
        To: Rosette, Kristina
        Cc: gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Meeting Summary - 14 May
        
        
        My point was, they were submitted to the list, discussed on the
list, but not included in the document that went out prior to today's
the call. Also, I assume there will be an opportunity for minority
statements, correct?
        
        Tim 
        



                -------- Original Message --------
                Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Meeting Summary - 14 May
                From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
                Date: Mon, May 14, 2007 4:10 pm
                To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
                Cc: <gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
                
                
                They were not dismissed out of hand and I take offense
at your assumption that deferral = dismissal.   Because you were not
available to answer questions that may arise while discussing them, I
made the decision that, out of fairness , we should wait until Wednesday
in the hope that you would be available.  Based on your message below, I
will ensure that we discuss and vote on the proposals on Wednesday
regardless of whether you are on the call.
                 
                 


________________________________

                        From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
                        Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 5:05 PM
                        To: Rosette, Kristina
                        Cc: gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
                        Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Meeting Summary - 14
May
                        
                        
                        I will do my best to participate on the call.
Regardless, I do not expect my suggestion so to be dismissed out of hand
because they don't fit the views of certain members of WG, or because
those members don't like my answers. I believe I've answered any
questions raised so far, and even offered a modified version. If there
are other questions please let me know.


                        Tim 
                        



                                -------- Original Message --------
                                Subject: [gnso-pro-wg] Meeting Summary -
14 May
                                From: "Rosette, Kristina"
<krosette@xxxxxxx>
                                Date: Mon, May 14, 2007 3:45 pm
                                To: <gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
                                
                                
                                All, 
                                Thanks to everyone who participated in
today's meeting.  We accomplished a lot.  Here's a meeting summary with
action items in bold red. 
                                1.  Definitions.  Everyone is to use the
list to put forth definitions, revised proposed ones, etc.  More
specifically, please use the document I circulated today to add new
definitions or propose suggestions.  If you want to propose a new
definition for an already-listed term, please include it below the
original definitions and identify it as ALTERNATIVE.  If you want to
revise a definition, you can do so within the existing definition as
long as you circulate a track changes or redline.  Please indicate in
your cover email to the list what you've added or changed (e.g., added
definition for X, changed definition for Y).  During our meeting on
Wednesday, we will "vote" on definitions put forward and discussed via
list; there will be very little time for discussion.
                                2.  Proposed Principles .  We discussed
the principles in the document I circulated last night.  I will
circulate a revised chart that reflects the current "status" of the
various proposals.    Please review it and comment by list.  Everyone is
free to post additional proposals with the caveats that (a) the
proponent must provide clear explanations and be prepared to answer all
questions posted to the list; and (b) the new proposals should be in
"final" form by our call on Wednesday.  
                                (Tim - We did not discuss your proposals
because we wanted to ensure that you had the opportunity to present them
and answer the inevitable questions.  We planned to do that on Wednesday
if you will be on the call.)
                                3.  IDN -related statement posted by
Avri.  Please review the statement and post a message to the list that
sets out the following:  (a)  Do you have any objection to or
disagreement with this statement such that you would object to using the
"Agreement" convention for it?  If so, please identify the basis of the
disagreement and what changes, if any, would allow you to support it.
(b)  If you do not have an objection to it, please state if you believe
we should draw a principle from it.  (c) If your answer to (b) is "yes,"
please post a proposed principle using the MUST-SHOULD-MAY convention.
                                -*- 
                                Questionnaire results .  It occurs to me
that I don't believe we've discussed Liz's question of how to represent
the questionnaire results in the report.  Liz, did you have any
suggestions in mind?  Anyone else?
                                Many thanks, all. Talk to you on
Wednesday. 
                                Kristina