<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [registrars] [Fwd: [dow3tf] Envoi d'un message : TMP1071162345.htm]
- To: "Rob Hall" <rob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [registrars] [Fwd: [dow3tf] Envoi d'un message : TMP1071162345.htm]
- From: "Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:25:34 -0500
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcPAElJdD7wlZ8zNRy+3Ru9HnhUmEwACdSZQ
- Thread-topic: [registrars] [Fwd: [dow3tf] Envoi d'un message : TMP1071162345.htm]
I am confused by the 2 different sets of notes. They refer to the same TF, but list different representatives.
Ross, could you please explain?
As to the number of participants, in past TFs or committees, ICANN's made a practice of allowing observers on a "non-speaking" basis. Ross, was that the case here? If not, I agree with Rob and Brian that we need to address this situation with Barbara because the relative number of voices can slant the debate.
Thanks,
Elana Broitman
Register.com
575 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Phone (212) 798-9215
Fax (212) 629-9309
ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 1:12 PM
To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [registrars] [Fwd: [dow3tf] Envoi d'un message : TMP1071162345.htm]
I have a question.
It seems there were 7 votes cast. The IP constituency seemed to have 2 people present, as did Business. (in fact, the IP const had an additional one absent).
Why is it we have only one rep, when they seem to have more than one. Whats up ?
And can you please release the specific results of how people voted (ie: the individual votes).
Thanks.
Rob.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 12:37 PM
To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: [registrars] [Fwd: [dow3tf] Envoi d'un message : TMP1071162345.htm]
WHOIS Task Force 3 Teleconference December 1 - Minutes
ATTENDEES:
GNSO Constituency representatives:
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Brian Darville
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Terry Clark
gTLD Registries - Ken Stubbs
Registrars Constituency - Ross Rader
Commercial and Business Users constituency: Marilyn Cade, Sarah Deutsch
Non Commercial Users Constituency: Frannie Wellings
Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency: Greg Ruth
Liaisons:
At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) liaisons: Vittorio Bertola
ICANN Staff Manager: Barbara Roseman
GNSO Secretariat: Glen de Saint Géry
Absent:
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Kiyoshi Tsuru
MP3 <http://gnso-audio.icann.org/WHOIS301122003.mp3> recording
Nominations for Task Force Chair:
Sarah Deutsch nominated by Ken Stubbs, seconded by Greg Ruth.
Brian Darville nominated by Ken Stubbs, seconded by Sarah Deutsch
Ross Rader nominated by Sarah Deutsch, seconded by Ken Stubbs
Barbara Roseman outlined the role of task force chair that the chair was responsible for organizing the activities of the task force, including compiling the Task Force Report. The chair of a task force need not be a member of the Council.
Barbara Roseman referred to the tasks and milestones in task force 3 <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/tor3.shtml> terms of reference and said that the description of work was fairly extensive.
Sarah Deutsch withdrew her candidature.
Brian Darville was elected as chair, 4 to 3 votes
Task Force members were requested to submit statements of affiliation or interest associated with the policy development process.
It was explained that such statements would provide a record for integrity sake and would be included in the material posted on the website so as to make clear to the public who was involved in the work.
Barbara Roseman proposed requesting an opinion from General Counsel on the status of various participants in the Task Force, e.g., constituency representatives, liaisons, Nom-Comm appointees, outside experts in answer to questions raised.
Ken Stubbs drew attention to the holidays coming up and suggested that all timelines take the last two weeks of December as difficult periods for participation
Brian Darville proposed scheduling teleconferences on a weekly basis.
For next call: Look at where more time is needed and assessment of data gathering.
Brian Darville thanked everyone for their presence and participation and ended the call at 20:40 UTC.
Next call: Wednesday 10 December 15:00 UTC, 10:00 EST, 7:00 Los Angeles, 16:00 CET.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|