RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Controversial Names Subgroup report

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

That's your call Avri but I do think that what you had in Section 3 of
the Executive Summary should be in the recommendations table because
they are recommendations.

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: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 10:45 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: GNSO RN WG; Controversial TLDs
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rn-wg] Controversial Names Subgroup report
> Importance: High
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I am going out for several hours now, but can look at it when 
> i get back.  I take you have decided that it is better to 
> weave those recommendations back in as opposed to just 
> leaving them in.
> 
> As for the 2nd and 3rd level that was decided the last time, 
> and as far as i know not even in the SOW for this time. As I 
> remember there was a recommendation then that there were no 
> CN considerations being recommend for 2nd level and beyond.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> On 9 maj 2007, at 10.39, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > Avri,
> >
> > Would you suggest a way of presenting the recommendations 
> to deal with 
> > this ASAP and then I will do a full review of the report.  
> It is also 
> > important to add in the other recommendations for 2nd and 3rd level 
> > from the original report.  Because you do not use Word, if it is 
> > easier I can do that.
> >
> > 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: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 10:33 AM
> >> To: Gomes, Chuck
> >> Cc: GNSO RN WG; Controversial TLDs
> >> Subject: Re: [gnso-rn-wg] Controversial Names Subgroup report
> >> Importance: High
> >>
> >> hi,
> >>
> >> Thank you for normalizing the look and feel of the report.
> >>
> >> Re the issue of removing the old recommendations.
> >>
> >> For the most part, the content is included in the new 
> >> recommendations.  I am not sure, however, that _all_ of 
> the aspects 
> >> are covered, and thus we may need to retain the original 
> proposals or 
> >> we may need to add the content into the current recommendation set.
> >>
> >> The subgroup did, however, pretty much use those recommendations, 
> >> having been supported originally but requiring more work, as the 
> >> agreed upon base for the new recommendations.  Where we did make 
> >> changes, e.g. the move away from requiring full consensus 
> decisions 
> >> from the ACs, those were explicit decisions and were 
> discussed in the 
> >> background section of the document
> >>
> >> a.
> >>
> >> On 9 maj 2007, at 08.57, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> >>
> >>> <Subgroup Report for Controversial Names with Gomes edits 
> 8 May.doc>
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
>