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

[Olévié Kouami <olivierkouami@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all !
@Anne : Thank you for supporting my wording "PREAMBLE" in place of
"PREFACE".

@Chuck : My inputs are at the beginning of the document as I've mentioned
to Anne here up.  And also at the end of the document, in the WG members
list it's not mentioned that I'm a Co-Chair for this P&I WG.

@CLO : +1. IMHO, that is why we are existing as a WG and are at that step
of our work. The Initial Report is to be discussed by the folk (GNSO) and
the WG will take their comments and suggestions into account for the Final
Report.

Isn't it ?

Please, thank you all for teaching me.
Cheers !
-Olevie-


2015-01-14 2:47 GMT+00:00 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 <520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <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.
>>
>
>


-- 
Olévié Ayaovi Agbenyo KOUAMI
Responsable du Projet CERGI Education
Directeur-Adjoint de KT Technologies Informatiques sarl
SG de ESTETIC  - Association Togolaise des professionnels des TIC (
http://www.estetic.tg)
ICANN-NPOC Communications Committee Chair (http://www.icann.org/ et
http://www.npoc.org/)
Membre du FOSSFA (www.fossfa.net) et Membre de de Internet Society (
www.isoc.org)
BP : 851 - Tél.: (228) 90 98 86 50 / (228) 98 43 27 72
Skype : olevie1 FB : @olivier.kouami.3 Twitter : #oleviek Lomé - Togo