ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

Re: [dow2tf] Revised draft

  • To: maggie.mansourkia@xxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [dow2tf] Revised draft
  • From: "Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 15:41:57 -0400
  • Cc: Marilyn Cade <mcade@xxxxxxx>, "'Steve Metalitz'" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>, "'Thomas Keller'" <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'2DOW2tf'" <dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <000801c44357$269b1550$446e20a6@mcilink.com>
  • References: <000801c44357$269b1550$446e20a6@mcilink.com>
  • Sender: owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Let me just add a couple of points that I think may help frame where we are:

Maggie is correct that there is certainly some additional work remaining to be done before the tiered access plan can be acted upon. What we have at this point is a concept, and not something that is ready to be adopted at the Board (or probably even the Council) level.

It's possible that some or all of our questions have already been addressed by TF #1, as they're supposed to be focusing on mechanisms of providing access. Also, we may get useful feedback through the public comment process. As we have some joint meetings with TF #1 and see the results of the public comment process, we may be able to start to answer the questions we've identified and solidify the policy recommendation prior to the final report being issued.

If not, someone is going to have to do some further work, whether it be in the form of another PDP or some sort of implementation committee.

Having said all that, I can see how Steve's text could be construed a bit differently from the policy recommendations in 3.5. This is why I proposed mirroring the language of the recommendation there in 1.4. Do people have thoughts on my proposed language from earlier today?

Also, are there thoughts on Steve's proposed modifications to the national law section in 1.4?

Finally, if you do have changes, please forward them to the list as soon as possible. We really need to get a final draft distributed and voted upon to meet our Friday deadline.


On May 26, 2004, at 3:25 PM, Magnolia Mansourkia wrote:

But wouldn't another task force, study or something be necessary anyway to
address the viability, cost, etc.?? The point is that until we have answers
to these questions, we really don't know if the concept (which is agreeable)
can become a roadmap or policy description (which needs to explored to see
if it can work).

I'd like to adopt change that the concept needs more work or "exploration"
but I do agree with Jordyn that the goal of further exploration should be to
answer the unanswered issues noted, not have a multi-leg or redundant
process in place.

I also have a couple of edits I'll be forwarding shortly.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Thomas Keller
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 1:13 PM
To: Steve Metalitz
Cc: Jordyn A. Buchanan; 2DOW2tf
Subject: Re: [dow2tf] Revised draft

To all,

I believe that the former version reflected the discussions we had over the
month very good and therefore object against adopting the new changes.
My interpretation of the DOW is that this taskforce has to recommend a
for the problems identified as in scope of the taskforce and not to refer
to yet another taskforce/steeringgroup whatsoever. Please correct me if I'm
but that is exactly what "a topic of further explanation" means to me.



Am 26.05.2004 schrieb Steve Metalitz:
Another alternative would simply be to put a period after "exploration."
The specific questions could be left to sec. 3.5.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jordyn A. Buchanan [mailto:jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 11:22 AM
To: Steve Metalitz
Cc: 2DOW2tf
Subject: Re: [dow2tf] Revised draft

I'm hoping others will have an opportunity to review Steve's changes
fairly quickly.

Steve: one thing I notice is that your proposed changes to the tiered
access provision seems to make even further exploration dependent on
resolving viability, financial feasability, etc. I'm not sure if that's
the intent, but that's how it reads right now.


On May 26, 2004, at 10:54 AM, Steve Metalitz wrote:

Attached please find suggested edits to sec. 1.4 to bring this summary

closer into line with the content of the recommendations in sec. 3.3
(local law) and 3.5 (tiered access).

Steve Metalitz

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Jordyn A. Buchanan
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 12:57 PM
To: '2DOW2tf'
Subject: [dow2tf] Revised draft

Hi all:

Sorry to send out another draft, but Glen was kind enough to provide
me with most of the links listed in the documents.  I've added them,
and in the process moved just about all links into footnotes.  I
imagine in the HTML version of the document, they'll simply become

This version of the document is also relative to last week's document,

so if you haven't yet looked at the version from last night, don't
bother.  This tracks changes included in that document as well.


<TF 2 sec 1.4 redline sjm 052604.doc>



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

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