ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [dow2tf] More calendaring

  • To: "Steve Metalitz" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>, "Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jbuchanan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "2DOW2tf" <dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [dow2tf] More calendaring
  • From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP" <mcade@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:54:52 -0500
  • Sender: owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcPgXoE5i7JJn2J9QCW5Tt01Cbg2yAABz7ug
  • Thread-topic: [dow2tf] More calendaring

It is important from the BC perspective as one of the constituencies that we be able to go to the Constituency ONCE on requests from the TFs. That is our  much preferred approach. We will do our best to be flexible, but our members much prefer to have a single unified request to spend their time on, since they must often do internal research across multiple internal contacts and even sometimes outside resources.

I thought we had a sort of understanding that we would look to staff to help to align requests so that there could be some ability to reach out for positions in a coherent manner to third parties, as well. To what extent has Barbara been able to lend some coherence across the work tasks of all three task forces? 

I agree with Steve's  question about constituency statements overall, but I  believe that the PDP has that as a "step" in the stages. IF we are finding that the process needs to be modified for later PDPs, let's also be sure that we are keeping some track of what makes sense to recommend to change, in the overall process. I doubt that Council will want to change the process "in mid stream" on these TFs, however. 

The Council is hearing three reports tomorrow. Jordyn, I apologize but will miss Council's call due to an internal  business responsibility. 

Marilyn S. Cade
AT&T Law & Government Affairs
1120 20th Street, NW, Suite 1000N
Washington, DC 20036

281-664-9731 e-fax
202-360-1196 c

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Metalitz [mailto:metalitz@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 3:31 PM
To: 'Jordyn A. Buchanan'; '2DOW2tf'
Subject: RE: [dow2tf] More calendaring

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 >>>