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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

hi,

No one has objected to running a hour later on Saturday so we can  
talk about the Inter-Registrar Transfer Issues paper and the  
possibility of intiating a PDP.
So, please add to your schedules:  1800-1900 - Inter-registrar  
Transfer Issues.
Karen, can you give us an overview of the Issues paper at that time?

Thanks

a.



On 24 okt 2007, at 15.25, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
>
> You are probably right, but while we are extending things, we might  
> as well make sure we allow enough time for any comments that may  
> come up, especially from observers at the meeting.
> And if we finish a half hour early, I am sure none of us will  
> complain.
> thanks
>
> a.
>
> On 24 okt 2007, at 14.03, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> > 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.