Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspension or Termination of a PDP
A couple of comments: * The first sentence of the last paragraph says 'specifying the reasons for the action taken', but it is not the WG that can take the action to suspend or terminate, but the Council. Should it read 'specifying the reasons for recommending termination or suspension'? * I'm still concerned by the bureaucracy this builds into the PDP. One of the main objectives of the last review was to build in more flexibility. The current language hardly leaves any room for the GNSO Council to exercise flexibility (in certain cases there may not be a need or demand for a formal report or public comment forum). A possible alternative could be to require the development of a formal termination / suspension report at the request of any GNSO SG/C or SO/ AC? This would allow for more flexibility while at the same time giving any party with an interest in the PDP a means to request a formal report on the reasons for termination or suspension. Best regards, Marika From: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx> Reply-To: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Tuesday 5 February 2013 17:58 To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Suspension or Termination of a PDP Dear All: I have attached the latest revisions to the Termination or Suspension of a PDP. During our last call, we agreed to add two minor changes: 1. I have added the term Suspension to the heading as suggested by Wolf-Ulrich; and 2. I have added language to the first sentence to clarify that a report on termination is only require if the termination occurs BEFORE the issuance of a final report. With these two minor changes, I think this language is in good shape for consensus. Sorry for the delay in getting this circulated. J. Scott j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx Attachment:
smime.p7s
|