RE: [gnso-trans-wg] Transfer Issues - Draft notes from conference call 30 January

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

any time Wednesday works for me.

At 11:47 AM 1/30/2008, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Thanks Olof. I should have looked at my calendar 
> during the call today.  I have a meeting that 
> starts at 14:00 UTC and could go as long as 2 
> hours.  If it ends early, I might be able to 
> participate in a 15:00 UTC call, but it would 
> work better for me if we could delay the 
> Transfer Policy call by 30 or 60 minutes.
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Olof Nordling
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 12:17 PM
> To: gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-trans-wg] Transfer Issues - Draft 
> notes from conference call 30 January
>
> Dear all,
> Please find very brief draft notes from our call today below.
> Comments & rectifications welcome, of course.
>
> Also, please note that a new call is tentatively 
> scheduled for Wednesday 6 February at 15.00 UTC. 
> Please indicate your availability for that call to the list.
> Best regards
>
> Olof
>
> -------------------
>
> Transfer Issues - Call 30 January 2008
>
> Participants: Tom Keller (group leader), Chuck 
> Gomez, Mike O'Connor, Glen de Saint Géry, Olof Nordling
> The task is to propose framing of future 
> potential PDPs to the GNSO Council, using the 
> prioritized list of 19 issues. It was agreed to 
> proceed based on Tom's mail suggesting three 
> issue groups, with Chuck's added comments. The 
> issues can be screened from a perspective of 
> feasibility, retaining those issues for which 
> reasonable progress can be achieved in a PDP.
> First issue group: "Enhancements to the current 
> operational rules of the transfer policy". 
> Comments/conclusions by issue (as numbered in Tom's mail):
> 1. Has a bearing on Whois and privacy issues, 
> thus controversial, and it's complex to find a 
> solution for this issue outside the Whois. 
> Conclusion: to keep 1 separate as a potential PDP on its own.
> 5. and 6. These are related and both are 
> feasible, although 6 could possibly merit 
> rephrasing. Conclusion: to keep both 5 and 6 in the first group.
> 7. and 2. (in the second group). Both are 
> related and have feasible "technical" aspects 
> but also much more difficult "policy" aspects, 
> deserving thorough investigation and separate 
> handling. Conclusion: to combine the "technical" 
> aspects of 7 and 2 and keep them in the first 
> group, while combining the "policy" aspects of 
> both as a separate potential PDP.
> 15. Assessed as contrary to existing policy and 
> as reopening past discussion. Conclusion: to eliminate 15.
> 18. Largely achieved, at least in theory, and 
> assessed as easily achievable in practice. 
> Conclusion: to keep 18 in the first group.
> A new call was suggested to take place on Wednesday 6 February at 15.00 UTC.
> Participants were invited to respond to the list about their availability.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 
> 269.19.16/1251 - Release Date: 1/30/2008 9:29 AM