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

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

Note that Liz sent the motion without her comment to the Council list so
this is a somewhat mute point now.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: Steve DelBianco [mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 2:11 PM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; Steve Metalitz; Liz Gasster;
gnso-whois-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: [gnso-whois-dt] Staff suggested edits to WHOIS
resolution
        
        
        Asd the author of study #3, I prefer we leave that portion of
the draft motion as originally stated.  But let's ask Liz to convey her
concerns  to staff for consideration when they determine feasibility and
costs.
        --Steve
        
        
        On 1/28/09 1:12 PM, "Chuck Gomes" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
        
        

                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.      
                2.      Leave the hypothesis wording as is and also
leave Liz's comment in the  motion. 
                3.      
                4.      
                5.      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. 
                6.      
                7.      
                8.      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