[council] Issues Report on specified Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

You are probably right, but while we are extending things, we might  
as well make sure we allow enough time for any comments that may come  
up, especially from observers at the meeting.

And if we finish a half hour early, I am sure none of us will complain.

thanks

a.

On 24 okt 2007, at 14.03, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> I am okay with extending the time on Saturday if needed but I would  
> suggest that we may not need a full hour.  I don't think there is  
> much if any controversy on this issue.  I would be surprised if we  
> even needed 30 minutes.
>
> Chuck Gomes
>
> "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity  
> to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is  
> privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under  
> applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure  
> is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error,  
> please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original  
> transmission."
>
>
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- 
> council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:52 PM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] Issues Report on specified Inter-Registrar  
> Transfer Policy issues
>
> Hi,
>
> Kristina, I am sorry to hear you won't be with us on Thursday as  
> the conversations about comments received during the meeting will  
> be as important as any vote we take and it would have been good to  
> have your contributions to these discussions.  Though I understand  
> that real life, families, and day jobs often get in the way.
>
> Would it be possible for you to attend this meeting, (17-20 EST),  
> remotely?
>
> I will try to find a way to fit this discussion on the Inter- 
> Rgistrar transfer policy into one of our earlier meetings, but am  
> not sure where.  One idea is to extend the day on Saturday by an  
> hour - not to vote, but to have the initial substantive discussion.
>
> So, would be people be willing to work an extra hour later on  
> Saturday, i.e. until 19 instead of 18, so that we can have the  
> initial discussion?  This might allow us to hold the vote on  
> Wednesday because most of the discussion could have taken place.
>
> BTW, as additional background, people should check out http:// 
> www.icann.org/topics/raa and especially http://www.icann.org/topics/ 
> raa/raa-public-comments-23oct07.pdf in addition to the materials  
> that have been develped by the WG and the Issues paper.
>
> thanks
>
> a.
>
>
>
> On 23 okt 2007, at 16.26, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
>
>> I would prefer that we not vote on Thursday.  I will be traveling  
>> back to DC, and made my travel plans on the assumption that  
>> Wednesday was our only voting meeting.
>>
>> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- 
>> council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 3:53 PM
>> To: Council GNSO
>> Subject: Re: [council] Issues Report on specified Inter-Registrar  
>> Transfer Policy issues
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This thread brings up the fact hat we did receive the Issue report  
>> on 19 October and given our resolve to meet the time limits in the  
>> by-laws, we should be discussing the issues report and voting on  
>> whether to commence a PDP on the issues in the report no later  
>> then 3 Nov 2007.
>>
>> Our schedule is already full for Wednesday and there is nothing on  
>> that schedule I would feel comfortable either shortening the time  
>> on, or moving to a later meeting.  We do have a meeting scheduled  
>> for Thursday 1400-1700 which is slated for an open discussion of  
>> input from the meetings.  I would like to spend 30 minutes of this  
>> 3 hour time slot to discuss the issues report and decide on  
>> whether to initiate the PDP process; i.e. to vote on two motions:
>>
>> 1. Whether to initiate a PDP process as recommended by Staff on  
>> page 22 of the issues report:
>>
>>> 6.1 Staff has confirmed that the proposed issues are within the  
>>> scope of
>>> the policy development process and the GNSO.  It is reasonable from
>>> the staff’s perspective to expect that greater precision and  
>>> certainty
>>> around the terms of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy would be
>>> beneficial to the community generally, particularly for  
>>> registrants, as
>>> well as those parties (gTLD registries and registrars) who are  
>>> obligated
>>> to comply with the policy provisions.  Staff therefore recommends  
>>> that
>>> the GNSO Council proceed with a policy development process limited
>>> to consideration of the issues discussed in this report.
>>>
>>
>> 2. Whether to create a Task Force for this purpose.
>>
>>
>> In the spirit of trying to met the timelines as outlined in the by- 
>> laws, and as supported by the council in our last meting, I hope  
>> there is not a strong objection to allowing this vote to occur as  
>> part of the Thursday meeting.  If there is strong objection, then  
>> I believe we will need to vote on a specific delay as part of the  
>> Wednesday meeting.
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> a.
>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20071024/d7cb4b46/attachment.html>