ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [dow2tf] More calendaring

  • To: "'Jordyn A. Buchanan'" <jbuchanan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'2DOW2tf'" <dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [dow2tf] More calendaring
  • From: Steve Metalitz <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 15:30:45 -0500
  • Sender: owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

What exactly would be the point of requesting constituency statements before
any data has been collected?  Won't the result be constituencies re-stating
their previous positions?  Would this really advance the process of seeking
a solution?   Perhaps Jordyn can explain the thinking behind this approach.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jordyn A. Buchanan [mailto:jbuchanan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 3:22 PM
To: '2DOW2tf'
Subject: [dow2tf] More calendaring

Hi all:

Steve just reminded me that the joint task force chairs and Bruce have 
also put together a proposed calendar, which is as follows:

Week of Jan. 20, 2004  — Request Constituency Statements on TF Work

Feb. 16, 2004 — Receive Constituency Statements

Feb. 25, 2004 — "Interim Report" reporting "Data" collected

March 3, 2004 — Task Force Workshops at Rome Meeting

April 9, 2004 — Preliminary Task Force Report

April 29, 2004 — Public Comment Period Closes

May 20, 2004 — Final Report Due

As you can see, this schedule is rather more aggressive than the one 
that Thomas has circulated.  There is actually quite a bit of inertia 
behind the schedule above, so it may make sense to try to comply with 
the above schedule, if we believe it to be practical.  (I'll add the 
caveat that it's fairly dependent on staff support.)


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