Re: [gnso-idng] Proposed motion for letter on extended evaluation.

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Good improvement Tim.  I didn't like mine very much but had little time to work 
on it.  Thanks. 

Chuck


----- Original Message -----
From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx>
To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thu Apr 29 18:14:24 2010
Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] Proposed motion for letter on extended evaluation.


The motion is fine and I am okay with Chuck's changes except I would
suggest that Chuck's wording in the first paragraph of the letter be
slightly modified as I propose below. See the text in between [[ and ]]
. It reads better to me.

To:   Kurt Pritz and members of the ICANN New GTLD Implementation Team,
CC:  ICANN Board

The GNSO Council requests a change to Module 2 of the Draft Applicant
Guidebook.  Specifically, we request that the section on "Outcomes of
the String Similarity Review" be amended to allow applicants to request
Extended Review under [[ applicable terms similar ]] to those provided
for other issues such as "DNS Stability: String Review Procedure".  We
further request that a section be added on String Similarity - Extended
Review that parallels other such sections in Module 2.

Tim


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] Proposed motion for letter on extended
evaluation.
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, April 29, 2010 3:57 pm
To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, <gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx>

Well done Avri. Thanks.

I made two very minor edits and two other edits that I think are needed.
They are highlighted in the attached file.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 2:01 PM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-idng] Proposed motion for letter on extended 
> evaluation.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Following yesterday's meeting, where the 3 of us in 
> attendance decided to propose a motion for a letter to be 
> sent to the implementation team requesting the addition of an 
> Extended Evaluation for strings that fail the Initial 
> Evaluation, I volunteered to write up a draft of such a motion.
> 
> I have attached that draft - which combines Chucks work with 
> my original draft of a letter and hopefully also incorporates 
> the sense of the WG relating to the extensive discussions on 
> creation of a WG.
> 
> As always, ready to edit till we get it right,
> 
> a.
> 
>