RE: [council] Should we go ahead with the teleconference schedule d for 17 July 2003?
- To: Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, council@xxxxxxxx
- Subject: RE: [council] Should we go ahead with the teleconference schedule d for 17 July 2003?
- From: tony.ar.holmes@xxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 22:34:47 +0100
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I concur with your proposal to cancel, but ask you to note the need to
consider the 3 members per constituency issue at the August meeting as
recently raised by Ken Stubbs.
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 11 July 2003 10:12
Subject: [council] Should we go ahead with the teleconference scheduled for
17 July 2003?
We have scheduled a GNSO teleconference for 17 July 2003.
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
- 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
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.