ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-frn-dt]


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

Re: [gnso-frn-dt] i had a go at a revised draft of the report

  • To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-frn-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-frn-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-frn-dt] i had a go at a revised draft of the report
  • From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 06:51:44 -0700

Hi Mikey,

Sorry for the delay. Please find attached a slightly revised version in
which I've updated some of the sections to reflect the current state of
the report as well as including the report of public comments as an Annex.
With regard to your question, if/when the DT signs off on the revised
draft, it will get submitted to the GNSO Council which will then need to
decide how to proceed. One thing the DT may want to consider doing, in
addition to the revisions in the report, is to create a public comment
review tool in which a response is provided to each of the submissions so
this can be included as an annex and shows that due consideration is given
to all comments, even if not all have resulted in changes to the report.

With best regards,

Marika

On 18/06/12 16:23, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>hm.
>
>the silence is "great job mikey"?  i'm thinking it would be nice to get
>this little one cleared off the plate fairly quickly -- Marika, what
>happens to a revised draft once we give it the nod?
>
>mikey
>
>
>On Jun 16, 2012, at 10:27 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
>
>> hi all,
>> 
>> 'seemed like scheduling and logistics got Too Hard.  it also seemed
>>like the comments were pretty easy to accommodate.  so i just went ahead
>>and cranked out a new draft.
>> 
>> it's unchanged until we get down to the "options" part at the end.
>>there, i added one to add this to an upcoming WHOIS PDP with a "worthy
>>of broader discussion by the Council but not our preferred approach"
>>pretty much in line with our view on adding it to a PDP on the RAA.  i
>>also refined the "launch a PDP on FRN" one that we had at the end based
>>on the ALAC comments -- there, i made the "narrow" point more clear,
>>added some benefits and bumped it up to that same "worthy of broader
>>discussion but not our preferred approach" status.
>> 
>> so take a look at this draft and see what you think.  the substantive
>>change is to agree on what our views are about those two additions, i
>>think.
>> 
>> mikey
>> 
>> <FRN Rp1 - wComments v1 - 16 June 2012.doc>
>> 
>> - - - - - - - - -
>> phone        651-647-6109
>> fax                  866-280-2356
>> web  http://www.haven2.com
>> handle       OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,
>>etc.)
>> 
>
>- - - - - - - - -
>phone  651-647-6109
>fax            866-280-2356
>web    http://www.haven2.com
>handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,
>etc.)
>
>

Attachment: Fake Renewal Notices - Updated Report - 19 June 2012.doc
Description: Fake Renewal Notices - Updated Report - 19 June 2012.doc



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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy