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