[gnso-lockdomainname-dt] Re[2]: [gnso-lockdomainname-dt] For final review - Updated Charter and Motion

[Andrii Paziuk <pazval@xxxxxxx>]

I also agree with the revised version
Andrii Paziuk


28 февраля 2012, 00:49 от Paul Diaz <pdiaz@xxxxxxx>:
> 
> I agree and support this revised version.
> 
> Best, P
> 
> PAUL DIAZ
> Director of Policy
> .ORG, The Public Interest Registry
> Main: +1 703 889-5778  | Direct: +1 703 889-5756  | Mobile: +1 703 973-1667 | 
> Skype: pdiazaim | Fax: +1 703 889-5779 |
> 
> Find us on Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/pir.org>  |  .ORG 
> Blog<http://blog.pir.org/> | Flickr<http://flickr.com/orgbuzz> | 
> YouTube<http://youtube.com/orgbuzz> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/ORGBuzz> |
> 
> On Feb 27, 2012, at 11:20 AM, Victoria McEvedy wrote:
> 
> I certainly prefer the suggested softer language.
> 
> Thanks and best,
> 
> Victoria McEvedy
> 
> McEvedys Solicitors and Attorneys Ltd.
> <image001.jpg>
> T:    +44 (0) 207 243 6122
> F:    +44 (0) 207 022 1721
> M:   +44 (0) 7990 625 169
> 
> www.mcevedys.com<http://www.mcevedys.com>
> 
> Authorised and Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, SRA No. 
> 564276. VAT No. 122 3590 43.
> 
> Company No. 7786363, Registered Office: 81 Oxford Street, London W1D 2EU.
> 
> This email and its attachments are confidential and intended for the 
> exclusive use of the addressee(s).  This email and its attachments may also 
> be legally privileged. If you have received this in error, please let us know 
> by reply immediately and destroy the email and its attachments without 
> reading, copying or forwarding the contents.
> This email does not create a solicitor-client relationship and no retainer is 
> created by this email communication.
> 
> From: 
> owner-gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
>  [mailto:owner-gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Konstantinos 
> Komaitis
> Sent: 27 February 2012 15:28
> To: 'Marika Konings'; 
> gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [gnso-lockdomainname-dt] RE: For final review - Updated Charter and 
> Motion
> 
> Thanks Marika – I have just sent an email that reflects Ken’s concern about 
> my language. If we can move from my wording the word ‘legitimate’ will this 
> address your concerns Ken? All, please bear in mind that these are only 
> suggestions that the WG may or may not take on board. We are providing some 
> wording and some recommendations which in any case are not exhaustive.
> 
> Also does anyone object that we replace the sentence: “As part of the WG 
> deliberations, the WG should consider, amongst others:” with “As part of the 
> WG deliberations, it is suggested that the WG considers, amongst other, the 
> following:” – I think that the verb ‘should’ is quite decisive in that the WG 
> should definitely follow these deliberations, which was not really our 
> intention when we were drafting these.
> 
> I would hope that we can finalize this via email and possible skip the call 
> tomorrow night. Of course, if there are significant concerns then we will 
> proceed with the schedule call tomorrow at 19:30 UTC.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Konstantinos
> 
> Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,
> 
> Senior Lecturer,
> Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses
> Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law
> University of Strathclyde,
> The Law School,
> Graham Hills building,
> 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA
> UK
> tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
> http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765
> Selected publications: 
> http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
> Website: www.komaitis.org<http://www.komaitis.org>
> 
> From: 
> owner-gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
>  [mailto:owner-gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
> Sent: Δευτέρα, 27 Φεβρουαρίου 2012 8:55 πμ
> To: gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [gnso-lockdomainname-dt] For final review - Updated Charter and 
> Motion
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> As requested by Konstantinos, please find attached an updated version of the 
> charter which includes the revised language proposed by Laurie (#1 and #2) 
> and the revised language proposed by Konstantinos (#5). Please share your 
> feedback, whether in the form of support or in the form of comments, 
> questions and/or edits with the mailing list so that we can determine whether 
> there is a need for a call tomorrow (see also items below from last week's 
> call). If there are no objections and no further comments / edits, the 
> charter will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration.
> 
> As a reminder, I have also attached the proposed motion which is to be 
> submitted to the GNSO Council together with the proposed charter. Comments on 
> this document are also appreciated.
> 
> With best regards,
> 
> Marika
> 
> From: Marika Konings 
> <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 03:32:46 -0800
> To: 
> "gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx>" 
> <gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-lockdomainname-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>
> Subject: [gnso-lockdomainname-dt] For review & doodle poll
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> Following yesterday's Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings 
> meeting, please find attached the updated draft charter which includes the 
> modified language and questions that were agreed for inclusion in the charter 
> template by those attending the meeting. In addition to any comments / edits 
> to the modified charter, DT members are encouraged to express their views on 
> whether the following questions should be included in the Charter:
> •         Whether the creation, maintenance and publication by ICANN of 
> public e-mail contact information for all registrars for use with 
> UDRP-related domain lock queries should be explored [Several members on the 
> call expressed their preference for this question not to be included as it 
> would likely get addressed should the WG decide to recommend a standardized 
> process for filing a complaint]
> •         Whether the time frame by which a domain should be unlocked after 
> termination of a UDRP, after the 10 day wait period, should be standardized 
> [Several members of the call expressed their preference for this question not 
> to be included as the UDRP already prescribes a 10 day wait period following 
> which the domain should be unlocked]
> •         Whether the standard of the 'locking' of a domain name subject to 
> UDRP should be raised and not be based on a simple request by the complainant 
> [Several members on the call expressed their preference for this question not 
> to be included as it was not considered in scope of the WG. A possible 
> alternative wording is to be suggested by Konstantinos]
> Please share your comments and/or proposed edits with the mailing list. The 
> objective is to try and finalize the charter during next week's meeting. In 
> order to find the most appropriate time, please complete the following doodle 
> poll: http://www.doodle.com/7b5wf44a65y2mqk2.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Marika
> 
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
> database 6919 (20120227) __________
> 
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> 
> http://www.eset.com
> 
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
> database 6919 (20120227) __________
> 
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> 
> http://www.eset.com
> 
>