Thanks Avri. We have now received a statement from the BC so they should be added along with the IPC. I tried to incorporate both the IPC and BC statements in the attached summary of the recommendations and left space for adding other groups' views in our meeting today. In the case of the IPC and BC, please make sure I captured your input accurately because I had to rush somewhat. As you can see, I created four (4) tables that summarize the positions in terms of Priorities and Feasibility of studies of the RyC, IPC and BC. The tables are organized so that each one includes the highest recommended priority by any constituency: Top, Medium, Low and No Study. In cases where the IPC and BC did not make a comment on the priority or feasibility, I assumed the same positions as the RyC; keep in mind this is easy to change. I also assumed a top priority for Study 7 on the part of the BC; if that is incorrect, we can easily change it as well. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 10:44 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] whois studies phone call
Hi,
Today's phone call does not have a formal agenda, and hence no decisions , in terms of votes, will be made. It would be good, however, if we could begin to come to some initial conclusion about the grouping of studies and the priorities of groups.
As an agenda I propose:
- review agenda - presentation of the IPC comment on the RyC model - presentation of any other available constituency comments or postions - discussion of the proposal RyC+IPC(+? in any) for moving ahead - next steps
Please comment and amplify on this agenda.
thanks a.