Thanks Danny, your detective work is always useful! :-)

Mawaki

--- Danny Younger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Mawaki,
> 
> From the Sao Paolo GNSO Council meeting transcript:
> 
> 
> >>BRUCE TONKIN: The board, however, has asked for the
> constituencies to respond to the LSE report itself and
> there is a public comment forum that has been set up
> for the LSE report.
> 
> And I looked at it a couple of days ago and it had
> zero comments, so I think the board certainly welcomes
> at this point of time comments from, I guess, members
> of the GNSO community as individual members. But,
> also, I think they are looking for feedback from
> constituencies. And I know the registry constituency
> has prepared a submission. I believe the registrars
> will bear a submission. And I'm not clear on the
> status of other constituencies. Is that an indication
> that the business constituency will do so?
> 
> Yes. I think what I would recommend the council do is
> advise constituencies to formally respond to the LSE
> report itself and other than that, we will wait to
> hear back from the board before we initiate any
> further activity on our side. Marilyn?
> 
> >>MARILYN CADE: I think I said on the record earlier
> and I think Philip or Alistair probably just
> acknowledged that the business constituency is working
> on comments but I think we should be realistic for
> ourselves and for the board and suggest that we have a
> reasonable amount of time and I am not talking about a
> lengthy amount of time but a reasonable amount of time
> in order for the constituencies to get comments back
> in. Are we talking two weeks? Or are we talking the
> Monday after I get back from the ICANN meeting? Do we
> have any idea?
> 
> >>BRUCE TONKIN: The board wasn't clear on that but
> certainly I think I can report back to the board in
> the public forum the discussion that's ensued here. So
> let me ask you, how long do you think you need to
> respond to the LSE report?
> 
> >>MARILYN CADE:Me for doing a consultation at the
> table. But I would think most constituencies need two
> weeks. Does any other constituency want to comment on
> that?
> 
> >>TONY HOLMES: The ISP constituency considered this in
> their constituency meeting yesterday, and we are a
> fair way down the road now. But probably a two-week
> period would be a fine just to get input from members
> who are not able to attend this meeting.
> 
> >>BRUCE TONKIN: I am not sure what the board timetable
> is because it probably relates a bit there.
> 
> >>KEN STUBBS: Bruce?
> 
> >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah. Go ahead, Ken.
> 
> >>KEN STUBBS: I would like to make an informal
> proposal if I could and that is we consider extending
> the period for comments for two weeks following the
> conclusion of this meeting here. I think that would
> give us an adequate time and I believe it would also
> give the board an opportunity to review and take a
> look at these comments between now and --
> 
> >>BRUCE TONKIN: I will recommend that to the board
> then and say the GNSO constituencies will commit to
> give something back to them two weeks following this
> meeting so they have an expectation of when we will
> get back to them and then they can hopefully set some
> expectations as to when they will get back to us.
> 
> 
>  
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> Cheap talk?
> Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
> http://voice.yahoo.com
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com