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