FW: FW: [gnso-sl-wg] two of the assigned drafts are attached
Thx Marilyn and Neal for these drafts. My comments and suggested edits are redlined in the attached. Mike Rodenbaugh Sr. Legal Director Yahoo! Inc. NOTICE: This communication is confidential and may be protected by attorney-client and/or work product privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me by reply, and delete this communication and any attachments. _____ From: owner-gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 12:13 PM To: GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: FW: [gnso-sl-wg] two of the assigned drafts are attached I have attached my draft assignment of a draft for Recommendation 6, and also attached Neal Blair's draft for Recommendation Seven. Both the recommendations were rewritten to be consistent with the draft recommendations from Patrick's summary chart on page 6,and then fleshed out, per the outline. Neal is traveling. I am not sure if he is going to be able to be on the call in person. I am familiar with his section and can walk through it if he is held up. He also asked that I ask the group how it was intended to deal with '-', which was discussed with the two technical experts last week, but isn't documented, except in the transcript. I reviewed the transcript, and since it was Avri's question, wondered if she might want to ensure that the discussion is captured in the body of the report in some way, or footnoted on the recommendations page, or included in the write up on 'symbols'. I did send both of these drafts off to Steve Bellovin and Mark McFadden and asked them to advise if these recommendations capture their 'advice' during the technical call. I am not sure how best to capture the description of both, since they were not 'technical experts', but are offering their comments informally, during a conference call. I have accordingly described it as an interactive consultation. Finally, it seems a pretty big waste of time to try to have an agreed document from my working notes. I am not sure how they fit into the report, in any case. Perhaps both the original, and Mike Rodenbaugh's suggested 'deletes' should just be part of the archives of emails. I think that is the usual treatment of contributions to email lists at ICANN. And, given the amount of work that still remains, that seems a better use of everyone's time. Regards Marilyn _____ From: "Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: FW: [gnso-sl-wg] Updated Single and Two Character Labels Subgroup Report Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 19:56:31 -0400 Just a reminder that we all have assignments to revise parts of the subgroup report. According to my notes, which may not be entirely trustworthy, these are as follows (using the recommendation numbers in the revised document -- attached): 4. Single letters at the Top Level -- Greg 5. Single letters and digits at the second level -- Avri 6. Single and Two Digits at the top level -- Marilyn 7. Single Letter/Single Digit Combinations at the Top Level -- Neil 8. Two Letters at the top level -- Alistair 9. Any Combination of Two Letters and Digits at the Second Level -- revision not needed Revision of Marilyn's Summary Report of Technical Experts Call -- Mike Please correct any faulty notes/recollections I have. We have our next call Monday at 4:30 EDT (details circulated). It would be good to have revisions (in track changes) circulated with enough time to review before the call so we can discuss on the call. Talk to you all Monday! Greg _____ From: owner-gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Patrick Jones Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 12:43 AM To: gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx Cc: 'Tina Dam'; ck@xxxxxxxxxx; 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Liz Williams' Subject: [gnso-sl-wg] Updated Single and Two Character Labels Subgroup Report As discussed earlier in the week, I have attached an updated single and two character labels subgroup report. I ran into problems with the latest template, so it remains a bit of a hybrid, but I wanted to make sure that an update went out to the subgroup that included materials on the definition of character and single and two character IDNs. I plan to add to the IDN section tomorrow morning. I want to thank Tina and Cary for their input and editing to my initial drafting on the definition of character over the past two weeks. The section is the result of inquiries to Michael Everson and Cary as experts and substantial guidance and suggestions from Cary and Tina. I think the definition should provide assistance to the new gTLD process. I have updated the definitions table and the recommendations table (although this may still need some tweaking). The recommendation sections, except for definition of character and single and two character IDNs, are essential the same as the previous draft (which was a cut & paste from the 19 March 2007 RN WG Report). I have added back in the section on symbols, based on Chuck's instructions from yesterday's full WG call. I still need to update the sections with references to the GAC Principles on New gTLDs and where relevant, the IDN WG Outcomes Report. I'll complete that tomorrow. I can't look at this anymore tonight. If you want to update sections, or if I have left out new material, please let me know. Also let me know if you have questions. I'll be online again in the morning. Patrick Patrick L. Jones Registry Liaison Manager Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Tel: +1 310 301 3861 Fax: +1 310 823 8649 patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx ><< SubgroupRep1_2CharApr26.doc >> Attachment:
RN WG RECOMMENDATION SIX.doc Attachment:
RECOMMENDATION SEVEN.doc
|