RE: [council] Nominations for IRT Participants

[Zahid Jamil <zahid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Tim,

I also wish we had more time and feel the board deadline is very demanding 
especially in light of the important legal issues involved.  I too would like 
to avoid a mad rush.  But this process was achieved after much effort and many 
may be reluctant to feel they may lose its effectiveness if we delay  Do you 
have a suggestion how we can ensure an extension on the board deadline?

Best 

Zahid Jamil
Barrister-at-law

Jamil & Jamil
Barristers-at-law
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
Cell: +923008238230
Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025
Fax: +92 21 5655026
www.jamilandjamil.com

Notice / Disclaimer
This message contains confidential information and its contents are being
communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended
recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this
message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may
contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law,
and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client
privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of
any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing
it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or
incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written
permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 16 March 2009 21:21
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Nominations for IRT Participants


Why are the deadlines given by the Board any more written in stone than
those in the Bylaws? The latter have been missed on almost every PDP
ever done. Doesn't the argument that it is more important for the work
to be done right, have integrity, and instill confidence just as
important here?

I agree that the IP and Business community shoul have their legitimate
concerns addressed before the new gTLD process can move forward. But
there is nothing to gain in the long term by a mad rush to an end game
that doesn't work well or as expected.

Tim 


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] Nominations for IRT Participants
From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, March 12, 2009 8:43 am
To: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi Bill,
 
Unfortunately, extending the deadline is simply not possible given the
deadlines provided by the Board in the resolution and the work that
needs to be done.  Moreover, a large number of people from almost every
constituency and some of the ACs had already contacted IPC members about
participating and had been provided similar information to that set
forth below.  I posted the message below in an effort to provide the
information for dissemination to those who had not already contacted IPC
members.  As for the Board's intent, I believe the language of the
resolution speaks for itself.
 
Kristina 
 


From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 5:21 AM
To: Rosette, Kristina
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Nominations for IRT Participants



Hi Kristina, 

Thanks for this information, which I've just passed on to NCUC. 
However, I would strongly suggest that we extend the deadline to Monday
or Tuesday.  Notification at 11pm on the 11th of a 13th noon deadline is
a very unworkable turnaround time if we are serious about getting strong
applicants and engagement from all constituencies, as the board intends.
 Some people might not be reading mail today or be able to determine so
quickly whether the workload fits with their schedule etc.


Thanks,


Bill

On Mar 11, 2009, at 11:00 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:

All, 
Because we've received a number of inquiries about nominations for IRT
participants, we thought it would be helpful to provide the information
below.


[The entire original message is not included]