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

[Liz Williams <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>]

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>>