RE: [nc-whois] CONFERENCE CALL

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

Abel,
The operator did try to call you. She checked in with me seveal times during the
first part of the call to advise me she was unable to reach you. There is a transcrpt
but for the short hand, we are working as a full TF next Monday, 11-1:00 p.m EST to
draft the short term recommendations, adn then will work in small teams on 
items 2 and 3 and longer term recommendations on 1 and 4.
That sounds cryptic... Thomas, can you give Abel a bit longer explanation?
Thanks. MC

-----Original Message-----
From: Abel Wisman [mailto:abel@able-towers.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 7:41 AM
To: nc-whois@dnso.org
Subject: [nc-whois] CONFERENCE CALL


I never got the call, so I assume at the time of call I was "out of
reach" (yes it even happens in these parts of the world)
I would however appreciate a quick rundown on the talk, can anyone
provide some notes ?

Regards

Abel


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nc-whois@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-whois@dnso.org] On Behalf
Of Thomas Roessler
Sent: 14 November 2002 12:27
To: nc-whois@dnso.org
Subject: [nc-whois] editorial question


Thinking about our work plan, I have a question: Do we really have 
to produce a comprehensive all-4-issues-report until the week of 
November 24?

An alternative I could think of would be to limit the "official"  
November 24 report to the "low-hanging fruits" - this should allow  
us to streamline our work on that report very much, and to reduce  
its volume.

Under the assumption (!) that only the low-hanging fruits require a  
Names Council vote in Amsterdam, we could then slightly later  
produce a second report on the remaining issues (as far as we have  
material on them) which would mainly try to give a systematic  
overview of the possible policy options we have encountered, and of  
the comments and inputs received during our conference calls and  
through the comment period.

-- 
Thomas Roessler                        <roessler@does-not-exist.org>