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

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

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 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.