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

["olof nordling" <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all,
I get the distinct feeling that 16.00 UTC the same day would be a good
option. Agreed?

Best

Olof

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
Sent: den 30 januari 2008 19:19
To: gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-trans-wg] Transfer Issues - Draft notes from conference
call 30 January


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