Wednesday, 30 Jan, 15:00 UTC (7 am PST) should work well for me.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Glen De Saint Gery [mailto:gnso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 1:16 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-trans-wg] Some thoughts on
approach regarding the transfer issues
Chuck, Tom et al,
Wednesday would be a possibility for
teleconference given other calls on Monday and Tuesday.
Suggested time 15:00 UTC
Let me know
Glen
-----Original Message-----
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:31:56
To:"Thomas Keller" <tom@xxxxxxxx>, "Olof
Nordling" <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-trans-wg] Some thoughts on
approach regarding the transfer issues
I also think a call would be helpful. I could
be pretty flexible for a call on Monday or
Wednesday of next week and could also do a call
on Tuesday or Thursday depending on the time.
Chuck
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Keller [mailto:tom@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 10:29 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Olof Nordling'; gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: AW: [gnso-trans-wg] Some thoughts on
approach regarding the transfer issues
Chuck,
I agree with you plan to move forward as
described below. We probably should have a call
to work out the concrete PDPs and the furhter work section.
Best,
tom
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 24. Januar 2008 15:04
An: Thomas Keller; Olof Nordling; gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: [gnso-trans-wg] Some thoughts on
approach regarding the transfer issues
Tom,
As I understand it, this group's role is making
recommendations regarding what we believe is the
best way to tackle the remaining recommendations
related to the IRTP. In that regard, the more
specific we are the more helpful it will be and
hopeful the more effective any PDPs will be.
The fact that we are mainly registrars and
registries should not be viewed negatively. The
reality is that most others do not understand
the issues of the IRTP and frankly for the most
part are not terribly motivated to do so.
Evidence of this is the delay in getting constituency statements.
Keep in mind that we would not be making any
final decisions as to items that may be taken
out; we would only be making recommendations for
consideration by the Council and providing our justification for that.
I agree that determining feasibility could be a
part of the ToR for possible WGs, but doing that
also can be an effective way of organizing the
work to maximize results. Creating a PDP or PDPs
that involve recommendations that may not be
feasible will not yield very good results in the
long term and will then result in
frustration. In contrast, if we recommend work
be done on recommendations that appear to be
more feasible, much more will be accomplished
and the process will be viewed much more
constructively. At the same time, we can group
less feasible recommendations into a category
that has lower priority and for which more work
needs to be done before initiating a PDP.
It would be helpful for me if others in this
small group answered and evaluated the questions
and comments I made. I may be totally off base
on some of them. But if we come to agreement on
some of the recommendations that will help us to
propose a work plan that has the greatest chances of being successful.
I could see us proposing three PDPs with the
broad groupings that you suggested (after we
refine them some if needed). Then we could also
propose a third group of recommendations
requiring further work before considering
putting them into a PDP. We could also make a
recommendation as to whether the PDPs should run
concurrently or serially. Finally, in our
proposals for PDPs we could provide some
preliminary ideas for elements of ToRs for working groups in the PDPs.
This then would give the Council a fairly
concrete plan for moving forward that could be
acted on. Otherwise, the Council will end up
not far from where we were in our last meeting, asking how we should proceed.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Keller [mailto:tom@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 8:08 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Olof Nordling'; gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: AW: [gnso-trans-wg] Some thoughts on
approach regarding the transfer issues
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
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database:
269.19.10/1241 - Release Date: 1/24/2008 9:58 AM