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

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

My preference is for 2.  I would be glad to discuss whether to reword
the hypotheses if there is interest from the group in doing so.  Monday
2/2 probably will not work for me, however. 
 
Steve Metalitz 

________________________________

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 1:13 PM
To: Metalitz, Steven; Liz Gasster; gnso-whois-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-whois-dt] Staff suggested edits to WHOIS resolution


I just now was able to pull up Liz's edits because I have been
traveling.  Because there is at least one objection, I do not think that
we should change the hypothesis wording rewgarding RAA 3.7.7.3 but we
could leave it as is and leave Liz's comment in. Would team members be
okay with that?
 
Here are some alternatives:

1.      
        Leave the hypothesis wording as is and also leave Liz's comment
in the motion.
2.      
        Leave the hypothesis wording as is but delete Liz's comment and
let her raise it at the Council level when the motion is considered.
3.      
        Have a Whois DT call on Monday, 2 Feb to resolve this if we are
unable to do so on the list.

 
Other alternatives are welcome.  Keep in mind that there will be plenty
of time to deal with the specifics of the motion after we send it to the
Council.  But if we do not send it to the Council soon, Councilors will
not have sufficient time to run it by their constituencies.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-whois-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-whois-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven
        Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 9:32 AM
        To: Liz Gasster; gnso-whois-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-whois-dt] Staff suggested edits to WHOIS
resolution
        
        
        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