<<<
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, 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
force.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>My suggested change is something to the effect:</div>
<div> </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 is included as a minority view in the report to the
GNSO Council.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Tim</div>
<div><BR> </div>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT:
blue 2px solid"><BR>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject:
[dow1-2tf] Vote for 2 Drafts to send to GNSO Council<BR>From: "Neuman,
Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx><BR>Date: Fri, November 26, 2004
7:34 pm<BR>To: dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>Cc:
"'bruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'"<BR><bruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR><BR>Ok,
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. 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.
In<BR>addition, I believe the ISPs (Tony and Maggie) expressed
approval on the<BR>last call.<BR><BR>Here are the 2 drafts. There
have been no changes to the Whois<BR>notification.<BR><BR><<Whois
TF Conflict (clean).doc>> <<WHOIS
NOTIFICATION.doc>> <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 & 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
>>>
|