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

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx>]

Avri's edit are also fine by me...

Cheryl Langdon-Orr
(CLO)



On 20 May 2010 05:19, Trachtenberg, Marc H. <MTrachtenberg@xxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>
>