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

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

Sounds good to me.

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 Metalitz, Steven
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 1:00 PM
To: Avri Doria; gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-raa-b] Revised draft of Section V


Unless there is objection, I am asking the staff to make Avri's edit
below and to change "One SubTeam member" to "several SubTeam members." 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 2:14 PM
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.