[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [wg-c] weekly reports [was: Deadlines]
Jean-Michel Becar also volunteered to that work, but he replied
only to me instead of the list.
Elisabeth
--
|From: Jean-Michel Becar <Jean-Michel.Becar@etsi.fr>
|To: "'Elisabeth PORTENEUVE'" <Elisabeth.PORTENEUVE@cetp.ipsl.fr>
|Subject: RE: SV: [wg-c] Deadlines
|Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 10:10:15 +0200
|Return-Receipt-To: Jean-Michel Becar <Jean-Michel.Becar@etsi.fr>
|
|I volunteer for the wg-c2.
|
|Jean-Michel Bicar
|becar@etsi.fr
|http://www.etsi.org
|E.T.S.I. Project Manager
|Tel: +(33) (0)4 92 94 43 15
|Fax: +(33) (0)4 92 38 52 15
--
Ivan wrote:
>
> I propose that Jonathan and Javier get together and set out the areas of
> discussion and what we are trying to achieve in each area. Then they and we
> will have some guidelines to see when we are wondering around all over the
> shop. Then we might make some progress.
> Ivan
>
> > I think we are making progress (and it's taken place
> > while I was off-line
> > for a few days to do other work. Is there a connection?) I
> > think it makes
> > sense for people to keep talking for a while longer before
> > anybody tries to
> > goose or structure the process.
> >
> > I'm not sure what to do about the weekly reports. The
> > NC members, in
> > their last meeting, agreed that such reports would be a good
> > idea, but that
> > was on the basis of their understanding that most of the posts to wg-c
> > consisted of procedural bickering. They figured that a
> > summary would allow
> > people to keep tabs on the small number of substantive posts
> > without having
> > to wade through all of the mail. At the moment, though, we're getting
> > 15-20 substantive posts per day, and very few nonsubstantive ones. It
> > would be hard to summarize 120-odd posts in a weekly update
> > in any level of
> > detail. I can try a more broad-brush summary if folks think
> > that would be
> > useful.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> >
> > Jonathan Weinberg
> > weinberg@msen.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > At 09:10 AM 8/3/99 +0100, Ivan Pope wrote:
> > >Elisabeth and all,
> > >I agree - more co-ordination and reporting needed. I would
> > like to see more
> > >shepherding of the process and reporting of progress by the
> > two chairs.
> > >I would also like to hear from the co-chairs as to what they
> > think their
> > >role and responsibilities are and how we can actually get
> > some progress
> > >here.
> > >That doesn't mean I don't think we are making progress - I
> > think there is a
> > >lot of very valid discussion going on.
> > >I would encourage those who are on the list lurking to make
> > their views
> > >known.
> > >Cheers,
> > >Ivan
> > >
> > >Ivan Pope
> > >NetNames
> > >Managing Your Internet Identity
> > >
> > >http://www.netnames.com
> > >180-182 Tottenham Court Road
> > >London, W1P 9LE
> > >+44 (0)171 291 3900
> > >+44 (0)468 625546 Mobile
> > >+44 (0)171 291 3939 (Fax)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Elisabeth PORTENEUVE
> > [mailto:Elisabeth.PORTENEUVE@cetp.ipsl.fr]
> > >> Sent: 03 August 1999 08:53
> > >> To: javier@aui.es; petter.rindforth@enderborg.se; wg-c@dnso.org
> > >> Subject: Re: SV: [wg-c] Deadlines
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Petter Rindforth wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Javier and all others, I fully agree that we have to set
> > >> > a new deadline although I am not sure that September 7th
> > >> > is enough. We will more likely need until September 30.
> > >> >
> > >> > I am convinced that we will be able to present a report
> > >> > by the end of September if only we could be a little more
> > >> > organized in our discussions and stop jumping from subject
> > >> > to subject, spending a lot of time with personal comments
> > >> > on single participants in this working group. We are here
> > >> > together, trying to solve some tricky problems and
> > >> > to deliver a serious report/recommendation. Right?
> > >> >
> > >> ==> Petter,
> > >>
> > >> Thank you very much for reminding us that some organization
> > >> is needed.
> > >> It was suggested by somebody that Weekly Reports (synthesis,
> > >> summary) are needed from Working Groups.
> > >> Could somebody (2 persons ? 3 ?) from WG-C write a brief
> > >> report (adding, when necessary, URLs to some contributions
> > >> to this list, which is archived
> > >> on http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Archives/) ?
> > >> Having that for the end of this week would be appreciated, then
> > >> we could continue with weekly updates.
> > >>
> > >> Elisabeth Porteneuve
> > >>
> > >> > Being an IP/IT Lawyer, a trademark owner and a domain name
> > >> > holder, I wish to point out that we, the accused "TM people"
> > >> > are not against the addition of new gTLDs as such,
> > >> > what we say is: Be careful, go slow and make sure that
> > >> > before creating any new problems there is a speedy and
> > >> > effective dispute resolution process, a system for protecting
> > >> > famous and well-known trademarks across all gTLDs and
> > >> > an easy and cost-effective system for obtaining full
> > >> > contact information. The addition of new gTLDs must be made
> > >> > in a very controlled manner, and that's why it has to be
> > >> > just a few to begin with.
> > >> >
> > >> > // Petter Rindforth
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> > >> > Från: Javier SOLA <javier@aui.es>
> > >> > Till: wg-c@dnso.org <wg-c@dnso.org>
> > >> > Datum: den 2 augusti 1999 19:41
> > >> > Ämne: [wg-c] Deadlines
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >WG C,
> > >> > >
> > >> > >It is clear that we will have problems meeting our August
> > >> 9th deadline for
> > >> > >the three reports that we are supposed to produce. We need
> > >> to figure out
> > >> > >another deadline for the working group reports.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >At this point we are just starting the real discussion,
> > >> and we should give
> > >> > >this at least a couple of weeks before we start drafting,
> > >> and then at least
> > >> > >another couple of weeks for drafting and figuring out
> > >> consensus on the
> > >> > >reports. I would propose that we set a new deadline for
> > >> the beginning of
> > >> > >September.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >I would like to propose Tuesday September 7th.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >Any other ideas ?
> > >> > >
> > >> > >Javier
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>