Re: [gnso-irtpd] For your review

[Holly Raiche <h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Lars

Just a few comments:

Right now, the way the documents work, you have to put your cursor over a word 
to see how it is defined.  What we are doing is different - and from my 
perspective, more helpful. But if we are going on with definitions (my 
preference), then TDRP needs a definition - at least Transfer Dispute 
Resolution Process, with a link to the policy. Same with ITRP.

On Dispute Resolution provider, why not shorten the definition to simply ‘… 
neither  associated  or affiliated with either the Respondent or Complainant.

Administrative Contact either needs a definition = or not to be capitalised

I’m not sure why the use of the term claimant is being proposed - since within 
the definition, the term complainant is used.  Why not stick with just 
complainant

Holly







On 7 Jun 2014, at 4:06 am, Lars Hoffmann <Lars.hoffmann@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> Please find below the proposed draft agenda for Monday’s call. Attached is 
> also the redline of the definitions. This includes some additions and 
> comments made by staff (following some feedback from the ICANN legal team and 
> marked in green).
> 
> Best wishes,
> Lars
> 
> 
> Draft Agenda
> IRTP Part D PDP Working Group, Monday 9 June 2014, 15.00 UTC
> 
> 
> 1. Roll Call/SOI Update
> 
> 2. Review of list of definitions
> 
> 3. Circle back through the public comments and discuss actions.
> 
> 4. Next steps/Confirming next meeting
> 
> <Definitions_Draft_6June.doc>