ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-frn-dt]


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

[gnso-frn-dt] For Review - Updated version of FRN Report

  • To: "gnso-frn-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-frn-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-frn-dt] For Review - Updated version of FRN Report
  • From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 02:18:22 -0800

All,

Please find attached an updated version which reflects Paul's comment. In 
addition, I've made a couple of additional edits, with, amongst others, 
proposed language for addressing the issue outlined below, proposed wording for 
the DT's view on option 2 ('The DT considers this option worthy of further 
discussion by the GNSO Council') and retweaked example language for option 1. 
To facilitate review, I've accepted all changes from the previous version so 
you can see the proposed changes in this version. If others agree with Paul's 
approach to try and coordinate final edits on the list, please share your views 
as soon as possible.

Thanks,

Marika

On 27/02/12 22:32, "Paul Diaz" <pdiaz@xxxxxxx<mailto:pdiaz@xxxxxxx>> wrote:

Great work as usual, Marika.

RE: DT Option for Next Steps #3 ("Add this issue to the upcoming PDP on the 
RAA"), do we have any sense of how long it may be before the "scoping 
conversations" yield an output?  If not (and/or if it's unlikely to happen in 
the near term), this should be noted as a 'con' for this option.

Otherwise, I think this is pretty much good to go.  If others DT members 
concur, perhaps we can coordinate our final edits on the list and forgo 
Thursday's (later than usual) call?  If we still need that call @ 2130 UTC, 
maybe we can keep it short?

Best, P


On Feb 27, 2012, at 8:44 AM, Marika Konings wrote:

Dear All,

Please find attached an updated version of the Fake Renewal Notices Report 
which reflects the discussion of our last meeting. Feel free to share any 
comments / edits you may have with the mailing list. One thing the DT may want 
to consider is whether it still make sense to have the options listed in order 
of preference, or, seeing that not all options are mutually exclusive and the 
recommendation is to put the report out for public comment first, whether it 
would make more sense to not to specifically say that it is in order of 
preference, but let the DT view for each option speak for itself.

With best regards,

Marika
<Fake Renewal Notices Report - Draft - 27 February 2012.doc>


Attachment: Fake Renewal Notices Report - Draft - Updated 29 February 2012.doc
Description: Fake Renewal Notices Report - Draft - Updated 29 February 2012.doc



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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy