RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Updated version of PEDNR Final Report posted

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

One other question/suggestion, sorry to bring it up so late but it
didn't strike me until now, perhaps due to changes.

Rec. 7 requires two notices to be sure some notice is given at
reasonable times. Fine, but why the need to require similar timing if
more than two are sent? It seems unnecessary and possibly even too
restrictive. There are more types of registrants and business models
than we can shake a stick at. It just may be that some other timing or
frequency makes sense and gets better results. So require the two as
stated, but drop the "if more than two" requirement. It isn't really
necessary, IMHO.


Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [gnso-pednr-dt] Updated version of PEDNR Final Report posted
> From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, June 13, 2011 6:00 am
> To: "gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> Please find attached an updated version of the PEDNR Final Report posted on 
> the wiki 
> (https://community.icann.org/display/gnsopednr/2.+WG+Documents+%28Drafts+-+Published%29)
>  that incorporates the edits suggested by Alan 
> (see http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-pednr-dt/msg00839.html) as well as the 
> attendance information. If no further minor edits / typos are submitted 
> today, this version will be submitted to the GNSO Council tomorrow, 14 June.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Marika
> 
>