ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [dow1-2tf] Vote for 2 Drafts to send to GNSO Council

  • To: "Neuman,Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [dow1-2tf] Vote for 2 Drafts to send to GNSO Council
  • From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 05:44:11 -0700
  • Cc: "'bruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <bruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Reply-to: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<div>If you actually read my posts, as well as Paul Stahura's,&nbsp;this
rewording does NOT appear to have the support of one of the elected RC
reps to this task force nor the alternative RC rep to this task
<div>My suggested change is something to the effect:</div>
<div>The General Counsel shall consider the entirety of its mission and
core values in any such recommendation.<BR></div>
<div>I suspect that anyone who cannot accept that change may have another
agenda not completely on the table. I would request that our elected
reps speak up here so that at the very least this difference of opinion
on this issue&nbsp;is included as a minority view in the report to the
GNSO Council.</div>
blue 2px solid"><BR>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject:
[dow1-2tf] Vote for 2 Drafts to send to GNSO Council<BR>From: "Neuman,
Jeff" &lt;Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Fri, November 26, 2004
7:34 pm<BR>To: dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>Cc:
&nbsp;I have reworded the contentious section in the last few e-mails
with<BR>Milton's suggested language of "in order to preserve the
operational<BR>stability, reliability, security, or global
interoperability of the<BR>Internet's unique identifier
systems."<BR><BR>With that said, unless I get a strong objection by
Monday at 11:59:59 am<BR>Eastern US time, I will forward the 2 drafts
to the GNSO Council. &nbsp; The<BR>reason I am doing it this way is
that in following the e-mail chain, I<BR>believe with the wording
change above, it has support from the Registrars,<BR>Registries,
Noncommercial, IPC and Business Users constituency.
&nbsp;In<BR>addition, I believe the ISPs (Tony and Maggie) expressed
approval on the<BR>last call.<BR><BR>Here are the 2 drafts. &nbsp;There
have been no changes to the Whois<BR>notification.<BR><BR>&lt;&lt;Whois
TF Conflict (clean).doc&gt;&gt; &nbsp;&lt;&lt;WHOIS
NOTIFICATION.doc&gt;&gt; <BR>As stated in the prior e-mails, we will
ask the Council to formally solicit<BR>constituency statements on these
reports (20 day period), and then include<BR>those statements in a
Preliminary Report which will then go out for
public<BR>comment.<BR><BR>Thanks.<BR><BR>Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
<BR>Director, Law &amp; Policy <BR>NeuStar, Inc. <BR>Loudoun Tech
Center <BR>46000 Center Oak Plaza <BR>Building X <BR>Sterling, VA 20166
<BR>p: (571) 434-5772 <BR>f: (571) 434-5735 <BR>e-mail:
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx <BR><BR>The information contained in this e-mail
message is intended only for the<BR>use of the recipient(s) named above
and may contain confidential and/or<BR>privileged information. If you
are not the intended recipient you have<BR>received this e-mail message
in error and any review, dissemination,<BR>distribution, or copying of
this message is strictly prohibited. If you have<BR>received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately and<BR>delete the
original message. </BLOCKQUOTE>

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>