RE: [gnso-dow123] Revised draft
For some reason Tom's redline does not show that he reinserted this language which my draft had proposed to delete, but Tim is correct about this. The redline is misleading in some other ways as well so you may wish to compare it with the proposal circulated last week, which I attach. Steve Metalitz -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 7:09 AM To: Tom Keller; gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Revised draft Tom, This is a serious step backwards from Steve's draft. In particular it reinserts the following: As a general rule, the General Counsel shall not recommend any enforcement action against such registry or registrar unless it finds that enforcement action is necessary in order to preserve the operational stability, reliability, security, or global interoperability of the Internet's unique identifier system. As I have said before, and I think ICANN Counsel has as well, that "general rule" is wholly inappropriate. It also attempts to require ICANN to ignore all but one of its Core Values in this context. Tim -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas Keller Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 2:58 AM To: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [gnso-dow123] Revised draft Hello, please find my hybrid version of Steves version attached. Best, tom Attachment:
Whois TF redline of rec 2 word from 1104 sjm 042405.doc |