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

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

...and good for me.

Tim 


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: AW: [gnso-trans-wg] Some thoughts on approach regarding the 
transfer issues
From: "Thomas Keller" <tom@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, January 25, 2008 2:52 am
To: "'Mike O'Connor'" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx>


Works for me.

tom

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx] Im
Auftrag von Mike O'Connor
Gesendet: Freitag, 25. Januar 2008 01:48
An: gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: [gnso-trans-wg] Some thoughts on approach regarding the
transfer issues


hi all,

15:00 UTC would work fine for me too.

m

At 01:43 PM 1/24/2008, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

>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