Re: [council] Draft Letter from GNSO to Board re WHOIS RT Recommendations
Brian, several comments: - does this imply that you will not be sending any of the detailed breakdowns by SG/Const, including the explanatory notes that - the use of the term SG is confusing, as it normally stands for Stakeholder Group in the GNSO context. - Ignoring the possibly confusing abbreviation, giving percentages of the SG without any information about its constitution is not very informative. - the reference to the GNSO's 6 constituencies is unclear, as the GNSO has (I think!) five constituencies in two Stakeholder Groups, and two Stakeholder Groups without constituencies. Alan At 16/10/2012 01:46 AM, Winterfeldt, Brian wrote:
Dear Councilors,
As was discussed in Saturday's session with regard to the WHOIS RT work, attached please find a draft letter to the ICANN Board detailing our various constituencies' recommendations as to whether a PDP would be required for certain WHOIS enhancements.
We appreciate your prompt attention to this matter and look forward to hearing your views so that we may move forward as soon as possible with providing our communication to the Board. Thank you.
Best regards,
Brian
Brian J. Winterfeldt
+1 on Alan's remarks, particularly the first one. I think the explanatory notes would be helpful. Best, Bill On Oct 16, 2012, at 2:17 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Brian, several comments:
- does this imply that you will not be sending any of the detailed breakdowns by SG/Const, including the explanatory notes that
- the use of the term SG is confusing, as it normally stands for Stakeholder Group in the GNSO context.
- Ignoring the possibly confusing abbreviation, giving percentages of the SG without any information about its constitution is not very informative.
- the reference to the GNSO's 6 constituencies is unclear, as the GNSO has (I think!) five constituencies in two Stakeholder Groups, and two Stakeholder Groups without constituencies.
Alan
At 16/10/2012 01:46 AM, Winterfeldt, Brian wrote:
Dear Councilors,
As was discussed in Saturday‚s session with regard to the WHOIS RT work, attached please find a draft letter to the ICANN Board detailing our various constituencies‚ recommendations as to whether a PDP would be required for certain WHOIS enhancements.
We appreciate your prompt attention to this matter and look forward to hearing your views so that we may move forward as soon as possible with providing our communication to the Board. Thank you.
Best regards,
Brian
Brian J. Winterfeldt
So - add the matrix including commentzs - use the "SG" abbreviation in the right context only (Stakeholder Group) - leve the text just with Stakeholder Groups / Constituencies (no numbers!) Also I think the breakdown of a small group of 5 people in percentages is questionnable to reflect community views. In total I think the matrix is selfdescribing where we are, and the board should be marure enough to interprete it. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von William Drake Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. Oktober 2012 08:38 An: Alan Greenberg Cc: Winterfeldt, Brian; 'council@gnso.icann.org' Betreff: Re: [council] Draft Letter from GNSO to Board re WHOIS RT Recommendations +1 on Alan's remarks, particularly the first one. I think the explanatory notes would be helpful. Best, Bill On Oct 16, 2012, at 2:17 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: Brian, several comments: - does this imply that you will not be sending any of the detailed breakdowns by SG/Const, including the explanatory notes that - the use of the term SG is confusing, as it normally stands for Stakeholder Group in the GNSO context. - Ignoring the possibly confusing abbreviation, giving percentages of the SG without any information about its constitution is not very informative. - the reference to the GNSO's 6 constituencies is unclear, as the GNSO has (I think!) five constituencies in two Stakeholder Groups, and two Stakeholder Groups without constituencies. Alan At 16/10/2012 01:46 AM, Winterfeldt, Brian wrote: Dear Councilors, As was discussed in Saturday's session with regard to the WHOIS RT work, attached please find a draft letter to the ICANN Board detailing our various constituencies' recommendations as to whether a PDP would be required for certain WHOIS enhancements. We appreciate your prompt attention to this matter and look forward to hearing your views so that we may move forward as soon as possible with providing our communication to the Board. Thank you. Best regards, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt
Dear Alan - thank you for your quick feedback. I will circulate a new draft shortly and be sure to include the additional information as promised earlier as appendices. I look forward to any additional feedback from the Council. Best, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Partner bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com> Steptoe From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 2:18 AM To: Winterfeldt, Brian; 'council@gnso.icann.org' Subject: Re: [council] Draft Letter from GNSO to Board re WHOIS RT Recommendations Brian, several comments: - does this imply that you will not be sending any of the detailed breakdowns by SG/Const, including the explanatory notes that - the use of the term SG is confusing, as it normally stands for Stakeholder Group in the GNSO context. - Ignoring the possibly confusing abbreviation, giving percentages of the SG without any information about its constitution is not very informative. - the reference to the GNSO's 6 constituencies is unclear, as the GNSO has (I think!) five constituencies in two Stakeholder Groups, and two Stakeholder Groups without constituencies. Alan At 16/10/2012 01:46 AM, Winterfeldt, Brian wrote: Dear Councilors, As was discussed in Saturday's session with regard to the WHOIS RT work, attached please find a draft letter to the ICANN Board detailing our various constituencies' recommendations as to whether a PDP would be required for certain WHOIS enhancements. We appreciate your prompt attention to this matter and look forward to hearing your views so that we may move forward as soon as possible with providing our communication to the Board. Thank you. Best regards, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt
participants (4)
-
Alan Greenberg -
KnobenW＠telekom.de -
William Drake -
Winterfeldt, Brian