AW: [gnso-trans-wg] Some thoughts on approach regarding the transfer issues

["Thomas Keller" <tom@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi Chuck,

thanks for the very useful comments. I personally think that this group
should stick to the grouping and prioritizing of the recommendations. Since
this group is made up mainly of registrars and registries I do not want to
get into the discussions whether we have taken out certain issues that might
not have been in our interest (I'm not suggesting that your comments were
leading into this direction, I just want to make sure). The only
recommendations I believe we possible could remove or rather commpine are
recommendations that are closely related like 7 and 2. Determining the
feasebility of the recommendations could be a part of the ToR of the WG.

Best,

tom

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 24. Januar 2008 00:29
An: Thomas Keller; Olof Nordling; gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: 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