Re: [gnso-rn-wg] Updated Controversial names report

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

As far as I understand the rules, we are not allowed to quote from  
the draft.  I did not read the rules as saying that their work could  
not be mentioned or even referred to.  I.e. I did not read it as a  
complete gag order regarding any/all discussion of their draft  
principles.
While there is a mention of the inclusion of the full draft in the  
PDF05 draft Final report, which is quoted unchanged, that annex is  
not included in this document.  But of course it can be redacted in  
the final report if necessary.
Also, while there are several references to specific principles in  
Tim Ruiz's comments, these do not actually quote the principles, but  
only refer to them.  In any case those remarks are Tim's and he would  
need to edit them.  Alternatively, they can be redacted in the final  
version as required by ICANN rules.
thanks
a.

On 13 mar 2007, at 13.52, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> My personal opinion is as follows.  I don't see any problem  
> referring to
> the issues but don't think it is a good idea to use direct quotes from
> the GAC draft as appeats to have been done in the three bullets in
> Section 1.1.  I also have reservations about specifically referring to
> the GAC draft.
>
> Chuck Gomes
>
> "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
> which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
> confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
> unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly  
> prohibited. If
> you have received this message in error, please notify sender
> immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 12:14 PM
> > To: GNSO RN WG
> > Subject: Re: [gnso-rn-wg] Updated Controversial names report
> >
> > hi,
> >
> > After sending this I received an update with comments from
> > Marilyn Cade that had not been included in earlier versions.
> > I have cut those comments in.
> >
> > There is still a difference of opinion on the subgroup in
> > terms of adding a discussion of 'some government's concerns'
> > versus having no discussion at all of their concerns.  The
> > version attached here still contains a discussion of 'some
> > government's concerns.'  That is section is, however, now bracketed.
> >
> > a.