ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: "Jeff Neuman" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Tom Keller" <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [dow1-2tf] Vote for 2 Drafts to send to GNSO Council
  • From: "Steven J. Metalitz IIPA" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:35:15 -0500
  • Cc: "Jeff Neuman" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcTWH+AozQPASfykTI6B4k6xnpo6aQACPufw
  • Thread-topic: [dow1-2tf] Vote for 2 Drafts to send to GNSO Council

 While I support the change Tim proposes, I have no objection to the
draft moving forward in the form circulated by Jeff. 

Steve Metalitz 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 9:29 AM
To: Tom Keller; Tim Ruiz
Cc: Jeff Neuman; Bruce Tonkin; dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [dow1-2tf] Vote for 2 Drafts to send to GNSO Council

Thanks Tom.  

Tim,  Milton is correct in that there will be other opportunities to
comment on the draft, including a time to submit constituency statements
as well as another opportunity for public comment after the preliminary
report is prepared.  At this point, I believe we should go forward with
the 2 drafts as sent out and then we can work on tweaking the language
if there is support to do so.  I think the most important thing right
now is to get these drafts out for comments, which I will send out in
2.5 hours.



-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Keller [mailto:tom@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 6:40 AM
To: Tim Ruiz
Cc: Neuman,Jeff; 'bruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx';
Subject: Re: [dow1-2tf] Vote for 2 Drafts to send to GNSO Council

Well, thats not quite true. I support the drafts and I'm one of the
elected RC reps ever since . Keeping in mind that this wording is the
result of long debates during varios calls over the last weeks I would
suggest that we move on with the documents as presented by Jeff.



Am 27.11.2004 schrieb Tim Ruiz:
> <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 force.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>My suggested 
> change is something to the effect:</div> <div>&nbsp;</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> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Tim</div> <div><BR>&nbsp;</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. 



(oo)    /|\     A cow is not entirely full of
  | |--/ | *    milk some of it is hamburger!
  w w w  w  

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