Re: [gnso-raa-b] Sections 1-4

["Hammock, Statton" <shammock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Cheryl and Margie,
Thanks for the explanations. Certainly, the statement can remain. Still not 
sure that's the right place Maybe it would be more suited as a footnote?
Stat 
Statton Hammock 
Sr. Director, Law, Policy & Business Affairs 
Network Solutions

________________________________

From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr 
To: Metalitz, Steven 
Cc: Hammock, Statton; gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx 
Sent: Tue May 18 18:26:50 2010
Subject: Re: [gnso-raa-b] Sections 1-4 


The bracketed sentence was to indicate that the ALAC is expected to endorse the 
report at it's next meeting on May 25th (ExCom having already started to review 
the last draft)  That should be in the report somewhere  where you put it I 
care less about as ALAC can be seen as = to a Council in an SO just as the RALO 
& ALSes are seen as = to the members or constituencies of an ICANN SO, such 
endorsement to a report to a Chartering Organisation *should* be noted if not 
in the report then I'll send it to the Chair of the GNSO for the Councils 
knowledge as Chair of the ALAC any way.


Cheryl Langdon-Orr
(CLO)




On 19 May 2010 07:25, Metalitz, Steven <met@xxxxxxx> wrote:


        Thanks Statton, I would defer to Cheryl or Holly re the bracketed 
sentence.  Thanks for catching the "nits."  
         
        Steve
         
         

________________________________

        From: Hammock, Statton [mailto:shammock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 4:48 PM
        To: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-raa-b] Sections 1-4
        
        

        Steve, 

        I just had couple of minor edits for Sections 1 -4. 

        At the end of 1.1 there is this bracketed sentence which reads:

        [In addition, during their meeting of 25 May 2010, the At-Large 
Advisory Committee (ALAC) by consensus endorsed the draft Initial Report on 
Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. ]

         I recommend deleting this sentence (if it was intended to remain) as 
the placement here seems awkward and I don’t know why we would necessarily 
highlight this fact. 

         

        Also, a couple of “nits”: I think we use “At-Large Community” as a 
capitalized term so we should check consistency. There are a few places where 
it appears as “At-Large community” (like in Section 4.1). Also in Section 4.1, 
last paragraph, there is a sentence that reads “A working group could conduct 
be chartered…..”  I think we meant to delete the word “conduct” in this 
sentence. 

         

        Let me know if anyone has any questions. 

         

        Thanks.

         

        Statton 

         

         Statton Hammock 
         Sr. Director, Law, Policy & Business Affairs 



P 703-668-5515  M 703-624-5031 <http://www.networksolutions.com> 
www.networksolutions.com

 

         

        
________________________________


        From: owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven
        Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 11:40 AM
        To: gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [gnso-raa-b] Revised draft of Section V 

         

        SubTeam B participants, 

        Following up on yesterday's call, attached please find a proposed 
revision of section V of the Initial Draft Report.  It lays out the two options 
for "next steps," and includes a draft of a brief supporting statement for the 
option that commands Strong Support within the SubTeam.  I understand that one 
of the registrar representatives (perhaps Statton?) will draft a statement of 
similar length for the alternative approach.  Of course, your comments and 
edits on anything in this document are welcomed.  Please circulated these as 
soon as possible, and in any case by Thursday of this week, so that we can stay 
on track for circulation of a "final" draft by staff no later than next Monday. 
 Thanks.  

        Steve Metalitz 

        <<Section V draft (2697426).DOC>>