RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Controversial Names Subgroup report
Avri, I made some major formatting edits as you can see in the attached redlined document. I did not review the Supporting Information section because I thought it was better to let the subgroup see what I did and get your feedback. What I tried to do is make your report consistent with all of the other reports without changing content, but I confess that I was not sure what to do with the old recommendations; I ended up deleting them and replacing them with what you put in section 3 of the Executive Summary, which seemed to be your recommendations. Please advise. If we need to talk, I should be available after 8:30 am PDT (11:30 am EDT). 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: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 1:55 AM > To: GNSO RN WG > Cc: Controversial TLDs > Subject: [gnso-rn-wg] Controversial Names Subgroup report > > Hi, > > I have attached rev 06 of the Controversial Names report. > While I have done my best to try and capture the 'strong > support' point of the sub-group, some comments came in at the > end that were merged into the document without sub-group discussion. > > The two primary recommendations that came in late were: > > - a basic reorganization of the dispute resolution process > for clarity with some content editing for achieving majority support. > > - the addition of a requirement that > > > Any consensus or other formally supported position from an ICANN > > Advisory Committee or ICANN Supporting Organization must > document the > > position of each member within that committee or > organization (i.e., > > support, opposition, abstention) in compliance with both the spirit > > and letter of the ICANN bylaws regarding openness and transparency. > > It is possible that sub-group members may want to add > minority statements with regard to these changes if I have > incorrectly perceived the level of support. > > thanks. > > a. > > Attachment:
Subgroup Report for Controversial Names with Gomes edits 8 May.doc
|