Re: Reminder: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Deadline for review - 13 January - PI Draft Initial Report

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx>]

Very supportive of our using a multiple Choice (or scale of 1-5  / Agree
to Strongly Disagree style of questions...


*Cheryl Langdon-O**rr ...  *(CLO)

about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr
[image: Cheryl Langdon-Orr on about.me]
  <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr>


On 14 January 2015 at 12:33, Michael Graham (ELCA) <migraham@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>  I agree that the Principles are important to the understanding of the
> proposals, and would prefer they remain part of the Draft.  I do agree,
> too, with Chuck, that a multiple choice question might be appropriate to
> include with the Draft for completion as part of the Public C omment.
>
>
>
> *Michael R. Graham*
>
> *Senior Corporate Counsel, Intellectual Property*
>
> *Expedia Legal & Corporate Affairs*
>
> *T* +1 425.679.4330 *|* *F* +1 425.679.7251
>
> *M* +1 425.241.1459
> Expedia, Inc.
> 333 108th Avenue NE *|* Bellevue *|* WA 98004
> *MiGraham@xxxxxxxxxxx <MiGraham@xxxxxxxxxxx>*
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic message may contain private,
> confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended
> recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this message by others
> is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please (i)
> contact the sender immediately; and (ii) permanently delete the original
> and any copies of the message including file attachments.  Thank you for
> your cooperation.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 13, 2015 5:22 PM
> *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Olévié Kouami'
>
> *Cc:* Marika Konings; gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* RE: Reminder: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Deadline for review - 13
> January - PI Draft Initial Report
>
>
>
> Thanks Anne.  Please see a few responses below.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx
> <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 13, 2015 7:32 PM
> *To:* 'Olévié Kouami'; Gomes, Chuck
> *Cc:* Marika Konings; gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* RE: Reminder: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Deadline for review - 13
> January - PI Draft Initial Report
>
>
>
> I think “Preamble” is a fine word to use in this context.  My further
> thoughts are as follows:
>
>
>
> 1.        The WG needs an Executive Summary to be reviewed in our January
> 14 call. This report is due no later than January 19.  The Executive
> Summary very important and we need to see and discuss it.
>
> 2.       I think we should ask commenters whether they believe the
> Principles should be adopted by the GNSO and/or the Board.
>
> *[Chuck Gomes] I question whether commenters will have enough background
> to answer this question.  Also, it seems to me that the principles are
> critical to our recommendations. As a WG it is up to us to propose
> recommendations and ask commenters to respond.  We could ask a multiple
> choice question for each of the recommendations.  I think that would be
> okay.*
>
> 3.       I agree with Chuck that policy is “developed” rather than
> “determined” by GNSO.  Would actually say “policy recommendations” are
> “developed” and that policy is made by the Board if you read the By-Laws
> carefully.
>
> 4.       I still do not understand the tautological definitions of
> “binding” and “non-binding force”.  These have to somehow relate to the
> ICANN By-Laws or there is no true meaning to the terms in the context of
> recommendations and/or comments from GNSO.  Does “binding force” refer to
> recommendations that require a certain majority of the Board in order to
> overthrow?
>
> *[Chuck Gomes] I believe that ‘binding’ refers to the fact that registries
> and registrars are required to implement them although I confess that I am
> not looking at the document at the moment so I can’t see the context.*
>
> 5.       In the “macro” overview of our work, I think we need to ask for
> public comment as to whether commenters believe that the suggested new
> processes will actually result in streamlined standardized issue resolution.
>
>
>
> I did not do a detailed review this time due to the time-consuming nature
> of remote participation in the Non-Contracted Parties House Intersessional
> meeting in D.C.  Looking forward to speaking with all of you tomorrow.
>
>
>
> Anne
>
>
>
>   *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel*
>
> *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | *
>
> *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611*
>
> *(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725*
>
> *AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>** | www.LRRLaw.com
> <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Olévié Kouami
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 13, 2015 1:41 PM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck
> *Cc:* Marika Konings; gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* Re: Reminder: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Deadline for review - 13
> January - PI Draft Initial Report
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
>
> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
> individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this
> message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or
> agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended
> recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you
> have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
> replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any
> attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and
> confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the
> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
>