ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-pro-wg]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report

  • To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report
  • From: Liz Williams <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 13:31:43 +0200

Mike

Yes, of course.  Happy to do that.

Liz
.....................................................

Liz Williams
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN - Brussels
+32 2 234 7874 tel
+32 2 234 7848 fax
+32 497 07 4243 mob




On 18 May 2007, at 00:00, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:

I suggest first round of comments back from everyone by COB Monday. Then hopefully Liz can takeover and finish up with one or two more rounds of review and comment next week.


Mike Rodenbaugh Sr. Legal Director Yahoo! Inc.

NOTICE: This communication is confidential and may be protected by attorney-client and/or work product privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me by reply, and delete this communication and any attachments.


From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pro- wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 2:44 PM
To: Nevett, Jonathon; gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report


No idea as to deadline. As I will be out for the next few days, I suggest you go with whatever Mike and Liz would prefer as to process.

From: Nevett, Jonathon [mailto:jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 5:41 PM
To: Rosette, Kristina; gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report

Kristina: Thanks for pulling all of this together. What’s the process/deadline for comments to this draft? Jon



From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pro- wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 5:31 PM
To: gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report




All,

Attached is the current draft of the report. Here's what changed since last night's version.

Added Kelly's Introduction.

Added definitions. I used the definitions I suggested this morning minus my subsequent revision to RPM. I indicated that there has not been discussion of the Rights of Others section.

Created a fee-specific section in Outcomes. All fee-related principles and proposals are here. Intro makes clear there are no levels of support.

Created a new RPM section in Outcomes. All new RPM proposals (Peter's, Mike's, and mine) are here. Intro makes clear that there's been no decision and there's outstanding work.

Classified all other proposals as Agreement, Support, Alternative View. I used the following methodology. I started with the chart I circulated last night and re-characterized the levels of support based on the postings today. If only one person objected to a proposal, I characterized the support as Agreement. If only one person objected to a proposal and provided their own suggestion, I characterized support for the original proposal as Agreement and identified the objector's suggestion as Alternative View. I characterized the level of support as Agreement ONLY if there was unanimity OR there was only one objection. Please check these carefully. Any mischaracterizations ARE NOT intentional. (Avri, I integrated your comments in #16 in way that I think you would find agreeable. Please check 4.2.5)) Finally, I listed in Outstanding work everything that had not been substantively discussed and/or had not resulted in level of support.

-*-

The report needs formatting clean-up as the spacing and may not be consistent. I also did not change New RPM Proposals to reflect agreed-upon terms. I'm sure there's something that I did or did not do that is not mentioned here. Any and all omissions are unintentional.

K

<<05172007 GNSO PRO WG draft report - SCRUBBED on 05-17-07 17_29.DOC>>







<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy