ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

[dow2tf] Posting per jeff neuman's request

  • To: <dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [dow2tf] Posting per jeff neuman's request
  • From: "Steve Metalitz" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:23:11 -0400
  • Cc: "Jeff Neuman" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcRNW79eaW5Vt6WsTa+xfB2ilsfsSw==
  • Thread-topic: Posting per jeff neuman's request

See attached.  I don't agree with Jeff, I think a call without a
document to work from is unlikely to be very productive.  

Steve Metalitz

 <<RE: Joint Whois TF1 and 2 call?>> 
--- Begin Message ---
  • To: "Steve Metalitz" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>, "Jeff Neuman" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, <dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <dow1tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: Joint Whois TF1 and 2 call?
  • From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:07:01 -0400
  • Cc: "GNSO Secretariat" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Barbara Roseman" <roseman@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Return-receipt-to: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>
  • Thread-index: AcRNWYGpu/M77G3lTXCPEKPGyGRFrQ==
  • Thread-topic: Joint Whois TF1 and 2 call?
Below is the text of the note that I believe was sent to Bruce yesterday.
Because it was mainly procedural, and because of the lack of time, we did
not believe it was necessary to have this procedural note reviewed by the
Task Forces.  With respect to the chart you are referring to, we have not
yet received anything from the ICANN Staff Manager who was going to help us
out with this.  Even if we have not received this chart by tomorrow, I
expect we can still have a fruitful initial discussion on the potential
I may send a note out later on today with what I believe are the areas of
overlap.  Can someone please post this note on the TF 2 list (as I believe I
do not have posting privileges).  Also, we may think about having a combines
TF 1 and TF 2 list so that this discussion (and others on the overlap) can
be done through e-mail.

Dear Bruce:

On behalf of all of the Whois Task Force chairs, I am writing to request
that you add a discussion of the Whois Task Forces to the agenda of the
Council's next conference call. In addition to updating the Council on our
activity, there are three areas in which we may wish to make proposals to
the Council. First, we will request that after the close of the public
comment period the Task Forces be allowed to revisit their initial reports
so that they may be updated in response to public comment as well as
additional feedback from constituencies. 

Second, we have identified some areas of overlap between Task Forces 1 and
2, and we may make requests of Council to approve procedures designed to
resolve any conflict between the two Task Forces' recommendations. (The two
Task Forces are participating in a joint meeting this week to discuss this
issue and develop a strategy going forward; we do not yet have any specific
requests to relay to the Council at this time.) Finally, depending on the
level of response seen in the public comment period, we may request the
option of extending the length of the public comment period.

As you can see from the initial reports, we have made a great deal of
progress thus far, and look forward to consulting with the Council in order
to establish procedures that will allow us to conclude our work.


Jordyn A. Buchanan

(also on behalf of Jeff Neuman and Brian Darville)


-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Metalitz [mailto:metalitz@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 8:55 AM
To: Jeff Neuman; dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Joint Whois TF1 and 2 call?

Jeff and Jordyn, 

According to my notes the main business of tomorrow's call was to review two
documents to be prepared by the two chairs:  the draft request to GNSO
Council re timetable and future work, and the chart identifying areas of
overlap or conflict between the preliminary reports of the two TFs. 

Since, unless I have missed some mail, neither of these documents has been
circulated yet, would it be more efficient to postpone the joint TF call
until such time as both have been circulated and the TF members have had
some time to review them?  

Steve Metalitz  

--- End Message ---

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