Re: [council] Should we go ahead with the teleconference scheduled for 17 July 2003?

[Demi Getschko <demi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'll be available for the eventual teleconference, but also
agree that if we don't have an agenda for this teleconf,
it will natural to cancel it.

demi

"ROESCH, LYNDA" wrote:

> I agree.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP [mailto:mcade@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 7:48 AM
> To: Bruce Tonkin
> Cc: council@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [council] Should we go ahead with the teleconference
> scheduled for 17 July 2003?
>
> I am comfortable with canceling the July teleconference of Council.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Keller [mailto:tom@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 6:57 AM
> To: Bruce Tonkin
> Cc: council@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [council] Should we go ahead with the teleconference
> scheduled for 17 July 2003?
>
> I second this motion.
>
> tom
>
> Am 11.07.2003 schrieb Bruce Tonkin:
> > Hello All,
> >
> > We have scheduled a GNSO teleconference for 17 July 2003.
> > (see http://www.dnso.org/meetings.html).
> >
> > I am looking at formulating an agenda, and so far I have:
> > - update ICANN President's working group to consider WIPO
> > recommendations ( I haven't been able to get in touch with Paul Twomey
> > on this yet)
> > - staff managers report on UDRP (we haven't received this from ICANN
> > staff yet)
> > - budget report (mainly an update on transition to direct ICANN
> > management of GNSO website and secretariat)
> > - WHOIS Privacy steering group update (nothing has happened since
> > Montreal)
> >
> > We don't have any substantive policy documents to consider at this stage
> > (7 days prior to the meeting).
> >
> > I recommend that we cancel the teleconference scheduled for 17 July, and
> > plan for the next scheduled conference on 14 August 2003.
> >
> > In the meantime I will continue to work with the WHOIS Privacy Steering
> > group to select a chair, and establish contact with Paul Twomey
> > regarding the WIPO recommendations and the need for the UDRP report
> > (which is well overdue).  I also want to ensure that the outcome of the
> > deletes task force is properly communicated to ICANN and the GAC to
> > ensure it is ready for decision by the ICANN Board at its next meeting.
> >
> > Please let me know if there is any substantial reason to hold a meeting
> > on 17 July 2003.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bruce Tonkin
> > Chair
> >
> >
>
> Gruss,
>
> tom
>
> (__)
> (OO)_____
> (oo)    /|\     A cow is not entirely full of
>   | |--/ | *    milk some of it is hamburger!
>   w w w  w
>
> *****************************************************************
> This email has been scanned by MailMax.
> http://www.maximizeit.net
> *****************************************************************
>
> *****************************************************************
> This electronic message transmission contains information from the law firm 
> of Dinsmore & Shohl which may be confidential or privileged. The information 
> is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you 
> are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, 
> distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you 
> have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us by 
> telephone (1-800-934-3477) or by electronic mail (netadmin@xxxxxxxxxxx) 
> immediately.
> *****************************************************************