[gnso-rrc-a] Re: [gnso-raa-b] Draft Presentation on Initial Report for Monday's Session

[Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@xxxxxxxxx>]

+1 Strongly Agree with Steven Metalitz.

Some of my observations and comments have not even been reflected in the
Amendment Summaries:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-raa-b/msg00044.html

http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-raa-b/msg00055.html


Sivasubramanian Muthusamy<isolatedn@xxxxxxxxx>

Sent at 11:37 PM (GMT+05:30)

to Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>
cc "gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx>
date Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 11:37 PM
subject Re: [gnso-raa-b] RE: Updated RAA Amendment Summary for Today's Call





Hello Margie Milam,


> I made some comments as seen in the message

http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-raa-b/msg00044.html and on the responses
> to that message, as also in the message

http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-raa-b/msg00055.html


> These comments have not been noted in this and previous updates. Possibly
> because these comments were made by email, rather than during the calls?


>
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy


On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 10:17 PM, Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>
 wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> Please find attached a revised RAA Amendment Summary for discussion on our
>> call today.  This document includes notes from our last call.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Margie
>
>
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:04 AM, Metalitz, Steven <met@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>  I disagree, this is part of our assignment, and part of our report.  It
> is up for public comment and should be at least mentioned in the
> presentation.
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Hammock, Statton [mailto:shammock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 16, 2010 2:01 PM
> *To:* Metalitz, Steven; Margie Milam; gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx;
> gnso-rrc-a@xxxxxxxxx
>
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-raa-b] Draft Presentation on Initial Report for
> Monday's Session
>
>  Steve,
>
>
>
> I am not sure that I agree that we should have a slide that lays out the
> three staked out positions on next steps because this might generate a
> debate on this particular topic which is not the purpose of the meeting, nor
> I believe, the forum for it.  We need to be sure we complete our
> presentation and that we have enough time for the panel discussion.
>
>
>
> Statton
>
>
>
> * *
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx] *On
> Behalf Of *Metalitz, Steven
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 15, 2010 4:49 PM
> *To:* Margie Milam; gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-rrc-a@xxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-raa-b] Draft Presentation on Initial Report for
> Monday's Session
>
>
>
> Thanks Margie, these look good.
>
>
>
>  (1)  We need an additional slide regarding the recommended next steps on
> RAA amendments (this would go just before law enforcement perspectives):
>
>
>
> Strong Support:  Include observers in negotiations (representing interests
> of affected non-parties)
>
>
>
> Substantial Opposition:  Only registrars and ICANN staff in negotiations
>
>
>
> Some Subteam Members:  Third parties should be full participants in
> negotiations
>
>
>
> Agreement that there must be periodic reports from negotiations, including
> text.
>
>
>
> (2)  Should the blank slide read "Questions/Comments"?
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx] *On
> Behalf Of *Margie Milam
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 15, 2010 3:38 PM
> *To:* gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-rrc-a@xxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [gnso-raa-b] Draft Presentation on Initial Report for Monday's
> Session
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Please find attached for your review draft slides  for Monday’s
> presentation on the RAA Initial Report.
>
>
>
> Please provide your comments or revisions by COB on this Thursday,  17 June
> 2010.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Margie
>
>
>
> _______________
>
> Margie Milam
>
> Senior Policy Counselor
>
> ICANN
>
> _______________
>