ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: <gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-trans-wg] Transfer Issues - Draft notes from conference call 30 January
  • From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:18:36 -0600

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.


-----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



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

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy