RE: [gnso-whois-dt] Staff suggested edits to WHOIS resolution

["Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>]

Liz, re your point #2 below, after nearly a year of discussion of these
hypotheses, I do not think it is practical to substitute wholly new
language that the chair has given us 18 hours to look at.  (And I will
admit I was asleep for several of those hours!) 
 
So in response to Chuck's message, I object to the edit proposed re item
2 below.  
 
Steve  

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-whois-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-whois-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 9:07 PM
To: gnso-whois-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-whois-dt] Staff suggested edits to WHOIS resolution



All,

 

I've inserted background text as requested and also made two additional
possible "edits" in the attached redline version of the resolution first
prepared so thoroughly by Steve Del Bianco.  The two edits I suggest are
to:

 

1.       Delete data set 1 as explained in my earlier email.  It was the
view of the WHOIS Hypotheses Working Group that GAC data set one should
not be conducted as a separate study, but rather if that data is needed
to conduct other studies, then the data would be gathered in that
context.  

2.       Raise again staff's concern about study #s 3 and 20, related to
RAA provision 3.7.7.3.  As discussed on earlier calls, it is staff's
view that this study cannot be conducted as set forth here, and I
include possible alternative language in my comment shown in the redline
attached.

 

As Chuck mentioned on the last call, our hope is to finalize this
language and post to the Council list by Thursday 29 January, so that
Council members can send it to their respective groups for review and
comment in preparation for a possible vote on the motion at the 19 Feb
Council meeting.

 

Thanks, Liz