RE: [gnso-raa-b] Revised draft of Section V

["Trachtenberg, Marc H." <MTrachtenberg@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree.

Marc H.  Trachtenberg
Winston & Strawn LLP
35 W. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601-9703
D: +1 (312) 558-7964
M: +1 (773) 677-3305      
F: +1 (312) 558-5700
http://www.winston.com
http://twitter.com/winstonadlaw


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 2:08 PM
To: gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-raa-b] Revised draft of Section V


I agree with Avri on this point, and believe it is consistent with BC
positions re the RAA.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 11:14 AM
To: gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-raa-b] Revised draft of Section V


Hi,

Thank you.  Can I suggest a minor change:

> One SubTeam member declined to support either proposed process, stating
that representatives of registrants, commercial and non-commercial users and
other affected parties should be full participants in the negotiation.  



s/parties/ICANN Stakeholders/


One SubTeam member declined to support either proposed process, stating that
representatives of registrants, commercial and non-commercial users and
other affected ICANN Stakeholders should be full participants in the
negotiation.  

And of course if anyone else agrees (which I would expect from the
discussion in the meeting) then perhaps 'one' can be upped to 'two' 'a few'
'several' ...


Thanks again

a.



On 19 May 2010, at 13:45, Metalitz, Steven wrote:

> Thanks for this Avri.  Let me say that I agree that this issue will be
> decided in the GNSO council and nothing in the report limits the options
> of anyone in the council deliberations. 
>
> In the attached I have inserted a sentence meant to reflect your view
> stated below.  Of course you should feel free to edit or prepare your
> own.  If you have other ideas about how this should be reflected in our
> report, please advise. 
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 3:44 PM
> To: gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-raa-b] Revised draft of Section V
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I know that I have not participated in this group, only monitored its
> mailing list.  And while there was nothing much controversial in parts
> 1-4, iI find that both options list in 5 are unsatisfactory.
>
> We will be discussing this in the NCSG, but it will be my recommendation
> that neither of these options be supported in council but that the issue
> be discussed further to find a solution that includes greater inclusion
> in the discussion by the ICANN Stakeholders - especially the registrants
> but also both commercial and non commercial users.  The idea that even
> in the majority recommendation, the observers can be excluded is
> unacceptable.  While I was originally personally willing to  accept the
> status of Observer for non Registrar participants, by which I mean full
> transparency and full participation except for decision making,  after
> thinking further of the conditions being imposed and re-listening to
> some of the contribution made at yesterday's meeting, I have come to
> personally accept the position that full dialogue must be insisted upon.
>
> a.
>
>
>
> On 18 May 2010, at 11:39, Metalitz, Steven wrote:
>
>> SubTeam B participants,
>> Hi,
>> 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>>
>>
>>
>> <Section V draft (2697426).DOC>
>
>
>
> <Section V draft -2 (2697426-2).DOC>





The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if 
this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. 
Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. 
Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
******************************************************************************
Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot 
be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.