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

[<tony.ar.holmes@xxxxxx>]

I'd like to add some support for Kristina, as I will also leave LA on
Thursday.
 
Tony

________________________________

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: 24 October 2007 19:44
To: Rosette, Kristina; Avri Doria; Council GNSO
Subject: RE: [council] Issues Report on specified Inter-Registrar
Transfer Policy issues


There are at least two avenues that are available for comments in the
GNSO: 1) via ICANN organizations (GNSO constituencies, ALAC, GAC) and
NomCom representatives, all of which are represented on the Council; 2)
public forums that we hold at ICANN regional meetings.  The latter
avenue is an exception and not general practice.  The former is the
normal avenue for input and one that should work particularly well for
this meeting because Constituency day as well as meetings by other
groups will preceed our meeting on the 31st.  That would seem to me to
allow for significant input for anything we act on the 31st or 1st
providing that each of us as representatives ensure that we discuss
issues with our respective constituencies, etc. on Tuesday or sooner.
The fact that we have working sessions on the weekend should provide us
even more information that we can share with our constituencies and
others on Tuesday and thereby faciliate seeking their input.
 
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 Rosette, Kristina
        Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 2:03 PM
        To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO
        Subject: RE: [council] Issues Report on specified
Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues
        
        
        Appreciate it, Avri. My flight leaves at 4 PST so I'll be on
remotely as long as possible.
         
        My schedule on Saturday would permit working longer, but I defer
to the consensus of the group, especially if I'm the only one attending
the meeting who will have left by Thursday afternoon.
         
        Not to make it more complicated, but when would we take public
comment or have public discussion?  On Saturday?  During the Wednesday
meeting?  Are we creating difficulties for ourselves w/r/t the community
if we use an open discussion/vote format for everything else on
Wednesday except this issue?  
         
        What is everyone else's preference? 


________________________________

                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.