RE: [gnso-trans-wg] Some thoughts on approach regarding the transfer issues
Thanks Tom for the good work. Using what you did, for most of the individual recommendations I inserted some questions, comments and suggestions for consideration. They are highlighted in the attached file. I am supportive of pursuing Tom's suggested grouping of the recommendations and then refining it as we look at the individual recommendations. I suspect that we might be able to eliminate some recommendations but that is a decision for us to make together. My comments are quite detailed and might be hard to discuss via email although my general approach could probably be discussed by email. Would it be useful for us to have a conference call? Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas Keller Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:25 AM To: 'Olof Nordling'; gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx Subject: AW: [gnso-trans-wg] Some thoughts on approach regarding the transfer issues Hello, I basically followed Olofs suggestion with the exception that I only created three groups and not five. Please have a look at the attached document for my first shot. As you will see I left the prioritization of the former TF as they are and just arranged the issues in groups following the ranking. Best, tom -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Olof Nordling Gesendet: Montag, 21. Januar 2008 17:45 An: gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx Betreff: [gnso-trans-wg] Some thoughts on approach regarding the transfer issues Dear all, Having re-read the document from Ross' prioritization committee (at http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/irdx-policy-priorities-20dec07.pdf ) I just wanted to share some thoughts with you: 1. According to a statement at the end of the paper "those issues scoring 8 or higher enjoy the broadest support from the committee". That would imply that issues 1 - 5 are in that group. 2. We could consider this top group in the listed order and see if any issue therein could usefully be grouped with any other issue with lower priority with a view to a PDP. Perhaps, for example, that issue 1 could be grouped with issue 7? 3. Then such "PDP embryos" could be further considered from the perspectives of, for example, a) potential importance to the registrants, b) likelihood of reaching consensus, c) cost/ease of implementation of a possible outcome etc - and, low and behold, a proposed PDP running order would emerge like magic (?). Just my three Euro-cents to start our discussions... Best regards Olof Attachment:
transfer-grouping_draftv1 with Gomes comments 23 Jan.doc
|