RE: [gnso-whois-dt] Whois Study DT 4 Feb 09 meeting notes
I am OK with the changes made on the February 4 call, but as a friendly amendment to the change to Study 3, I have been asked to propose to change "liability under RAA 3.7.7.3" to "liability under registration agreement provisions that reflect the requirements of RAA 3.7.7.3," which I suppose is more accurate. This friendly amendment is reflected in the attached. Steve Metalitz ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-whois-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-whois-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 7:58 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-whois-dt@xxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [gnso-whois-dt] Whois Study DT 4 Feb 09 meeting notes I don't think I have seen any list discussion of the following so it presently looks like we will need to have our call this coming Wednesday. There is still time for everyone to respond on the list. Chuck ________________________________ From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 6:11 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-whois-dt@xxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [gnso-whois-dt] Whois Study DT 4 Feb 09 meeting notes Importance: High There has been very little response to this message on the list so I am going to ask Glen, via this message, to schedule a DT call for Wednesday, 18 Feb at 18:00 UTC (1 pm EST) to wrap this up. Here is what we need to try to reach consensus on: 1. Is everyone on the DT ok with the edits made in our call on 4 February to the hypotheses for Studies 3 & 20 in Group E? In our meeting on 4 February, representatives from the following groups approved the edits: BC, ISCPC, NCUC, RyC and NomCom. So we need responses from the following DT members: Steve Metalitz or Lee Eulgin; Tim Ruiz; and Alan Greenberg, (The notes from the 4 Feb meeting are highlighted in the 1st attached file.) 2. Is everyone on the DT ok with the latest version of the motion? We need responses from a representative from every group on the DT. (The revised motion with proposed changes highlighted in the 2nd attached file.) If we reach consensus from all DT groups on the two above (interrelated) items on the list, we will cancel the call on the 18th, so please respond indicating whether you are ok with both of them, and if not communicate your concerns. We really should send the final motion to the Council before their 19 Feb meeting. Two other items that I will add to the agenda for 18 Feb if we have the meeting are: * Edits to Whois Study Term definitions suggested by Tim Ruiz * ALAC input to the Whois Study priorities. If we do not have the call on the 18th, we will schedule a call for 25 Feb to deal with them. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-whois-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-whois-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 2:28 PM To: gnso-whois-dt@xxxxxxxxx Subject: [gnso-whois-dt] Whois Study DT 4 Feb 09 meeting notes Importance: High Meeting notes for today's Whois Study DT are attached. Note that several edits were made to the hypotheses for Studies 3 and 20 in Group E. Please review those and comment on the list whether you are okay with them or have concerns. Our goal is to finalize the edits and hence the full motion by end of this week and send the revised motion to the Council list for distribution the all GNSO participants. Steve Metalitz - Because I believe you were the author of Study 20, your review and comment is particularly critical. Note that the author of Study 3, Steve DelBianco was on the call so he participated actively in the edits for hypothesis 3. Thanks, Chuck Attachment:
GNSO Council motion to pursue cost estimates for Whois studi (GNSO Council motion to pursue cost estimates for Whois studies revised 4 Feb 2009).doc
|