ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-igo-ingo-adm]


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

[gnso-igo-ingo-adm] RE: Pending work items

  • To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "Chuck Gomes" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo-adm] RE: Pending work items
  • From: <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:19:06 -0500

Hi Chuck, did you mean RCRC? That's what I saw. The IOC sent in a comment by 
email, I believe, as follows: 

The IOC does not have any specific revisions to this spreadsheet. 
   
However, the IOC believes that once an organization satisfies the qualification 
criteria, that they should be admitted upon application without having to jump 
through any additional hoops. 

In any case, I agree - not that difficult to deal with.  

Avri, how should we proceed with the consolidation as requested by Thomas on 
the call today? 

Cheers 
Mary 


Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: 
http://ssrn.com/author=437584  


>>> 


From:  
"Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 

To: 
Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> 

CC: 
Mary Wong <MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-igo-ingo-adm@xxxxxxxxx" 
<gnso-igo-ingo-adm@xxxxxxxxx>, Berry Cobb <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 

Date:  
1/16/2013 2:50 PM 

Subject:  
[gnso-igo-ingo-adm] RE: Pending work items 


Avri/Mary,

In looking at v.1.7 of the spreadsheet, I could only find a comment added from 
the IOC.  Am I correct on that?  If so, there comment seems to me to be fairly 
easy to handle.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 11:31 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Mary Wong; gnso-igo-ingo-adm@xxxxxxxxx; Berry Cobb
> Subject: Re: Pending work items
>
> Hi,
>
> I agree.
>
> But at least we now know what we need to do.  I do not think we have
> the biggest most important issues at the moment.
>
> avri
>
> On 16 Jan 2013, at 09:42, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> > At this late stage,  I don't think we have time to do more than defer
> to the coming week.
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:31 AM
> >> To: Mary Wong; Gomes, Chuck
> >> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-adm@xxxxxxxxx; Berry Cobb
> >> Subject: Re: Pending work items
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Tried using the list yesterday, but then noticed I never got the
> >> message and thus you probably didn't either.
> >>
> >> avri
> >>
> >> On 15 Jan 2013, at 17:48, Avri Doria wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> We have work items pending from last week.
> >>>
> >>> - Integrate RCRC stuff
> >>> - come up with some suggestions for way to figure out the magnitude
> >> of the various numbers included in the questions.
> >>> - come up with suggestions for way to figure out the of the sort of
> >> metrics
> >>>
> >>> Suggestions.
> >>>
> >>> I have no problem telling the group we have not worked on it at
> >> tomorrow's meeting.  But if anyone has thoughts, better.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> avri
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >




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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy