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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Same for me Tom.  I could only do it for an hour.

Chuck 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Thomas Keller
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 4:15 AM
To: 'olof nordling'; 'Mike O'Connor'; gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: AW: [gnso-trans-wg] Transfer Issues - Draft notes from conference call 
30 January


Works for me but only for one hour. I have another commitment at 17.00 UTC.

Best,

tom

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx] Im 
Auftrag von olof nordling
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 30. Januar 2008 22:24
An: 'Mike O'Connor'; gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: [gnso-trans-wg] Transfer Issues - Draft notes from conference call 
30 January


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