All,

I cannot make the 16h30 today. Apologies.

I can make 13h00 Wed and plan to do so. Could we condense into a single
meeting?

In any event, my suggestions on logistics:

- Perhaps we should try to set in place a sequence of meetings (as required)
so that we have the time pre-committed and avoid the need for frequent
polls.
- Also, it may be good to set out the scope of work and some timelines for
the milestones derived from that

I suspect that the above is all second nature to this group so forgive me if
so.

Thanks,

Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: Nurani Nimpuno [mailto:nurani@netnod.se]
Sent: 06 March 2016 22:52
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Cc: iana-ipr@nro.net; Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
Subject: Re: [Iana-ipr] Meeting in ICANN 55

works for me too.
Nurani



> On 06 Mar 2016, at 13:01, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
>
> Thanks. Those times work for me and are now in my calendar.
>
> jari
>
> On 06 Mar 2016, at 11:52, Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp> wrote:
>
>>> In that case, I propose we plan two 30 minute shots, 16:30 Monday
>>> and
>>> 13:00 Wed.
>> Works for me.
>>
>> Izumi
>>
>>> On 2016/03/06 20:43, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Mar 06, 2016 at 06:35:34AM -0500, Greg Shatan wrote:
>>>> I am free at 16:30 Monday until Public Forum starts at 17:00ish.
>>>> If need be, I can leave the (non-critical) session prior to that so
>>>> we can start at 16:00.
>>>>
>>>> I can do 13:00 Wednesday for 30 minutes, then I have to go to GNSO
Council.
>>>> (Though not on Council, as a Chair of a GNSO subgroup I need to be
>>>> there)
>>>
>>> In that case, I propose we plan two 30 minute shots, 16:30 Monday
>>> and
>>> 13:00 Wed.  We'll get some of everyone.  I think we should avoid any
>>> status discussion and nail down these open issues:
>>>
>>> 1.  Precisely what we want to do about the domain name controls stuff.
>>> I think we have at least 3 commercial entities who do this sort of
>>> thing, so let's nail down for sure the requirements and put them in
>>> the doc; then we can ask the implementers to put those requirements
>>> to bid.
>>>
>>> 2.  Exactly how we're going to solve the Trust-duty-to-enforce and
>>> the community-decides tension.  I think we need to work out language
>>> for the proposal.
>>>
>>> I _think_ those are the only things outstanding, and we can then (1)
>>> take to the respective communities, "Here's what we think is final,"
>>> and (2) send to lawyers for implementation.
>>>
>>> Does that ssound like a plan?  If so, I'll try to find a place for
>>> us to meet.
>>>
>>> A
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Iana-ipr mailing list
>> Iana-ipr@nro.net
>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
>
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-ipr mailing list
> Iana-ipr@nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr

_______________________________________________
Iana-ipr mailing list
Iana-ipr@nro.net
https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr


_______________________________________________
Iana-ipr mailing list
Iana-ipr@nro.net
https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr