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

["Eulgen, Lee J." <LEulgen@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Agree.  I think that 2 is the right approach given the urgency to get the 
motion to the Council.

________________________________
From: owner-gnso-whois-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-whois-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 2:33 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Liz Gasster; gnso-whois-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-whois-dt] Staff suggested edits to WHOIS resolution

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