Re: [gnso-dow123] Revised draft

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Doing a comparison on my blackberry is an impossibility. :-(

Can you explain the differences, perhaps, or Tom or Maroa, as staff, prhaps 
would do that?
-----Original Message-----
From: "Steven J. Metalitz IIPA" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 08:58:31 
To:"Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Tom Keller" <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>,       
<gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: 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



Regards,
Marilyn Cade