<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [dow1-2tf] Vote for 2 Drafts to send to GNSO Council
- To: Maggie.Mansourkia@xxxxxxx, mueller@xxxxxxx, tim@xxxxxxxxxxx, tom@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: RE: [dow1-2tf] Vote for 2 Drafts to send to GNSO Council
- From: "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 05:03:39 -0500
- Cc: dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, bruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <EB7597BFB1C65844898A6D153DE09DB517D44B@DGEXCH02.mcilink.com>
- Sender: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV class=RTE>
<P>I have been advised that my concurrence with putting this forward has not been received. My apologies. I
have been traveling and was relying on my blackberry while in transit. The BC will have comments and further
contributions during the process, but I support putting this forward for public
comment.<BR><BR></P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>From: "Mansourkia, Magnolia" <Maggie.Mansourkia@xxxxxxx>
<DIV></DIV>>To: "'Milton Mueller'" <mueller@xxxxxxx>, tim@xxxxxxxxxxx,
tom@xxxxxxxxxx
<DIV></DIV>>CC: dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
bruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: RE: [dow1-2tf] Vote for 2 Drafts to send to GNSO Council
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 22:06:52 +0000
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>The ISPs likewise vote to move this forward for further
comment. I'm sure
<DIV></DIV>>we will provide our own at the appropriate time, but for now, we
see it as a
<DIV></DIV>>workable recommendation.
<DIV></DIV>>Thanks,
<DIV></DIV>>Maggie
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>-----Original Message-----
<DIV></DIV>>From: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
<DIV></DIV>>On Behalf Of Milton Mueller
<DIV></DIV>>Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 2:28 PM
<DIV></DIV>>To: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx; tom@xxxxxxxxxx
<DIV></DIV>>Cc: dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
<DIV></DIV>>Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: [dow1-2tf] Vote for 2 Drafts to send to GNSO Council
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>I have consulted all three NCUC participants and we are agreed
that this
<DIV></DIV>>draft should be sent out for public comment and represents an
acceptable
<DIV></DIV>>compromise among the stakeholder groups
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>--MM
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> >>> Thomas Keller <tom@xxxxxxxxxx> 11/29/2004 6:40:02 AM
>>>
<DIV></DIV>>Well, thats not quite true. I support the drafts and I'm one of
the
<DIV></DIV>>elected RC reps ever since . Keeping in mind that this wording
is the
<DIV></DIV>>result of long debates during varios calls over the last weeks I
would
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>suggest that we move on with the documents as presented by Jeff.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Best,
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>tom
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Am 27.11.2004 schrieb Tim Ruiz:
<DIV></DIV>> > <div>If you actually read my posts, as well as Paul
<DIV></DIV>>Stahura's,&nbsp;this
<DIV></DIV>> > rewording does NOT appear to have the support of one of
the elected
<DIV></DIV>>RC
<DIV></DIV>> > reps to this task force nor the alternative RC rep to this
task
<DIV></DIV>> > force.</div>
<DIV></DIV>> > <div>&nbsp;</div>
<DIV></DIV>> > <div>My suggested change is something to the
effect:</div>
<DIV></DIV>> > <div>&nbsp;</div>
<DIV></DIV>> > <div>The General Counsel shall consider the entirety
of its mission
<DIV></DIV>>and
<DIV></DIV>> > core values in any such
recommendation.<BR></div>
<DIV></DIV>> > <div>I suspect that anyone who cannot accept that
change may have
<DIV></DIV>>another
<DIV></DIV>> > agenda not completely on the table. I would request that
our elected
<DIV></DIV>> > reps speak up here so that at the very least this
difference of
<DIV></DIV>>opinion
<DIV></DIV>> > on this issue&nbsp;is included as a minority view in
the report to
<DIV></DIV>>the
<DIV></DIV>> > GNSO Council.</div>
<DIV></DIV>> > <div>&nbsp;</div>
<DIV></DIV>> > <div>Tim</div>
<DIV></DIV>> > <div><BR>&nbsp;</div>
<DIV></DIV>> > <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px;
BORDER-LEFT:
<DIV></DIV>> > blue 2px solid"><BR>-------- Original Message
--------<BR>Subject:
<DIV></DIV>> > [dow1-2tf] Vote for 2 Drafts to send to GNSO
Council<BR>From:
<DIV></DIV>>"Neuman,
<DIV></DIV>> > Jeff"
&lt;Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Fri, November 26, 2004
<DIV></DIV>> > 7:34 pm<BR>To: dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>Cc:
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>>"'bruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'"<BR>&lt;bruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx&g
<DIV></DIV>>t;<BR><BR>Ok,
<DIV></DIV>> > &nbsp;I have reworded the contentious section in the
last few
<DIV></DIV>>e-mails
<DIV></DIV>> > with<BR>Milton's suggested language of "in order to
preserve the
<DIV></DIV>> > operational<BR>stability, reliability, security, or
global
<DIV></DIV>> > interoperability of the<BR>Internet's unique
identifier
<DIV></DIV>> > systems."<BR><BR>With that said, unless I get
a strong objection by
<DIV></DIV>> > Monday at 11:59:59 am<BR>Eastern US time, I will
forward the 2
<DIV></DIV>>drafts
<DIV></DIV>> > to the GNSO Council. &nbsp; The<BR>reason I am
doing it this way is
<DIV></DIV>> > that in following the e-mail chain, I<BR>believe
with the wording
<DIV></DIV>> > change above, it has support from the
Registrars,<BR>Registries,
<DIV></DIV>> > Noncommercial, IPC and Business Users constituency.
<DIV></DIV>> > &nbsp;In<BR>addition, I believe the ISPs (Tony
and Maggie) expressed
<DIV></DIV>> > approval on the<BR>last
call.<BR><BR>Here are the 2 drafts.
<DIV></DIV>>&nbsp;There
<DIV></DIV>> > have been no changes to the
<DIV></DIV>>Whois<BR>notification.<BR><BR>&lt;&lt;Whois
<DIV></DIV>> > TF Conflict (clean).doc&gt;&gt;
&nbsp;&lt;&lt;WHOIS
<DIV></DIV>> > NOTIFICATION.doc&gt;&gt; <BR>As stated in
the prior e-mails, we will
<DIV></DIV>> > ask the Council to formally solicit<BR>constituency
statements on
<DIV></DIV>>these
<DIV></DIV>> > reports (20 day period), and then include<BR>those
statements in a
<DIV></DIV>> > Preliminary Report which will then go out for
<DIV></DIV>> >
public<BR>comment.<BR><BR>Thanks.<BR><BR>Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
<DIV></DIV>> > <BR>Director, Law &amp; Policy <BR>NeuStar, Inc.
<BR>Loudoun Tech
<DIV></DIV>> > Center <BR>46000 Center Oak Plaza <BR>Building X
<BR>Sterling, VA
<DIV></DIV>>20166
<DIV></DIV>> > <BR>p: (571) 434-5772 <BR>f: (571) 434-5735
<BR>e-mail:
<DIV></DIV>> > Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx <BR><BR>The information
contained in this
<DIV></DIV>>e-mail
<DIV></DIV>> > message is intended only for the<BR>use of the
recipient(s) named
<DIV></DIV>>above
<DIV></DIV>> > and may contain confidential and/or<BR>privileged
information. If
<DIV></DIV>>you
<DIV></DIV>> > are not the intended recipient you have<BR>received
this e-mail
<DIV></DIV>>message
<DIV></DIV>> > in error and any review,
dissemination,<BR>distribution, or copying
<DIV></DIV>>of
<DIV></DIV>> > this message is strictly prohibited. If you
have<BR>received this
<DIV></DIV>> > communication in error, please notify us immediately
and<BR>delete
<DIV></DIV>>the
<DIV></DIV>> > original message. </BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Gruss,
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>tom
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>(__)
<DIV></DIV>>(OO)_____
<DIV></DIV>>(oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of
<DIV></DIV>> | |--/ | * milk some of it
is hamburger!
<DIV></DIV>> w w w w
<DIV></DIV></div></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|