Re: [dow1-2tf] Vote for 2 Drafts to send to GNSO Council

["Milton Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

I have consulted all three NCUC participants and we are agreed that this
draft should be sent out for public comment and represents an acceptable
compromise among the stakeholder groups

--MM

>>> Thomas Keller <tom@xxxxxxxxxx> 11/29/2004 6:40:02 AM >>>
Well, thats not quite true. I support the drafts and I'm one of the
elected RC reps ever since . Keeping in mind that this wording is the 
result of long debates during varios calls over the last weeks I would

suggest that we move on with the documents as presented by Jeff.

Best,

tom


Am 27.11.2004 schrieb Tim Ruiz:
> <div>If you actually read my posts, as well as Paul
Stahura's,&nbsp;this
> rewording does NOT appear to have the support of one of the elected
RC
> reps to this task force nor the alternative RC rep to this task
> force.</div>
> <div>&nbsp;</div>
> <div>My suggested change is something to the effect:</div>
> <div>&nbsp;</div>
> <div>The General Counsel shall consider the entirety of its mission
and
> core values in any such recommendation.<BR></div>
> <div>I suspect that anyone who cannot accept that change may have
another
> agenda not completely on the table. I would request that our elected
> reps speak up here so that at the very least this difference of
opinion
> on this issue&nbsp;is included as a minority view in the report to
the
> GNSO Council.</div>
> <div>&nbsp;</div>
> <div>Tim</div>
> <div><BR>&nbsp;</div>
> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT:
> blue 2px solid"><BR>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject:
> [dow1-2tf] Vote for 2 Drafts to send to GNSO Council<BR>From:
"Neuman,
> Jeff" &lt;Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Fri, November 26, 2004
> 7:34 pm<BR>To: dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>Cc:
>
"'bruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'"<BR>&lt;bruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR><BR>Ok,
> &nbsp;I have reworded the contentious section in the last few
e-mails
> with<BR>Milton's suggested language of "in order to preserve the
> operational<BR>stability, reliability, security, or global
> interoperability of the<BR>Internet's unique identifier
> systems."<BR><BR>With that said, unless I get a strong objection by
> Monday at 11:59:59 am<BR>Eastern US time, I will forward the 2
drafts
> to the GNSO Council. &nbsp; The<BR>reason I am doing it this way is
> that in following the e-mail chain, I<BR>believe with the wording
> change above, it has support from the Registrars,<BR>Registries,
> Noncommercial, IPC and Business Users constituency.
> &nbsp;In<BR>addition, I believe the ISPs (Tony and Maggie) expressed
> approval on the<BR>last call.<BR><BR>Here are the 2 drafts.
&nbsp;There
> have been no changes to the
Whois<BR>notification.<BR><BR>&lt;&lt;Whois
> TF Conflict (clean).doc&gt;&gt; &nbsp;&lt;&lt;WHOIS
> NOTIFICATION.doc&gt;&gt; <BR>As stated in the prior e-mails, we will
> ask the Council to formally solicit<BR>constituency statements on
these
> reports (20 day period), and then include<BR>those statements in a
> Preliminary Report which will then go out for
> public<BR>comment.<BR><BR>Thanks.<BR><BR>Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> <BR>Director, Law &amp; Policy <BR>NeuStar, Inc. <BR>Loudoun Tech
> Center <BR>46000 Center Oak Plaza <BR>Building X <BR>Sterling, VA
20166
> <BR>p: (571) 434-5772 <BR>f: (571) 434-5735 <BR>e-mail:
> Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx <BR><BR>The information contained in this
e-mail
> message is intended only for the<BR>use of the recipient(s) named
above
> and may contain confidential and/or<BR>privileged information. If
you
> are not the intended recipient you have<BR>received this e-mail
message
> in error and any review, dissemination,<BR>distribution, or copying
of
> this message is strictly prohibited. If you have<BR>received this
> communication in error, please notify us immediately and<BR>delete
the
> original message. </BLOCKQUOTE>
> 
> 
> 

Gruss,

tom

(__)        
(OO)_____  
(oo)    /|\     A cow is not entirely full of
  | |--/ | *    milk some of it is hamburger!
  w w w  w