RE: [gnso-whois-dt] Whois Study DT 4 Feb 09 meeting notes

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

Thanks Steve.  Looks like a friendly amendment to me.  Does anyone disagree?

Chuck


Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)

 -----Original Message-----
From:   Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@xxxxxxx]
Sent:   Monday, February 16, 2009 12:15 PM Eastern Standard Time
To:     Gomes, Chuck; gnso-whois-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject:        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