ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-trans-wg]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: "'Gomes, Chuck'" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-trans-wg] Some thoughts on approach regarding the transfer issues
  • From: "Olof Nordling" <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:36:18 +0100

Dear all, 
When considering any grouping of issues at the call Wednesday, we should
keep in mind that the August communication from Ross (see attachment), where
the issues were listed, does feature headings (to be seen as groupings if
you like...). Then, Ross' group was asked to prioritize the individual
issues, which they did. Just a FYI so we don't go in circles on this....

Best regards

Olof  

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: den 24 januari 2008 20:43
To: gnso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-trans-wg] Some thoughts on approach regarding the
transfer issues


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











Attachment: Transfer-Advisory-23aug07.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy