ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Revised Text for Circulation

  • To: "William Drake" <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Revised Text for Circulation
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 09:33:04 -0400

Looks good to me Bill.  I suggest that you allow at least 24 hours for
comments from the drafting and then go ahead and send to the Council
list and make the motion with the understanding that the link to the
proposed process can be added later.  I realize that some on the DT may
not be able to respond in such short time especially because it is a
weekend, but there has been excellent DT discussion of this in the last
week or so and changes can still be made at the Council level until the
motion is voted on.  Also, I need to send the proposal to Janis and Olof


Thanks to Bill for finalizing this to everyone on the DT for all the
excellent work.




From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 6:14 AM
To: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-arr-dt] Revised Text for Circulation




On May 29, 2010, at 8:59 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

45 days is okay, so we probably should give the SGs 3 weeks thereby
leaving 3 weeks if needed for the Council.  If any SGs find 3 weeks as
too short we could extend it to 24 days and still stay within the 45
days and still allow 3 weeks for Council action if needed.



Ok, 21 days it is.  Please see attached.  I believe I cleaned up
(simplified) some bits of language, let me know if there are issues.
Otherwise I can send this to Council Monday.






<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy