RE: [gnso-sti] Draft STI Report

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Margie, I have a number of items that I am checking with Olivier on 
first, but in 4.3, "stings" should probably be "strings" (unless you 
have slipped in an editorial comment here!)  ;-)

At 05/12/2009 04:45 PM, Margie Milam wrote:

> Hi Olivier
>
> Sorry, I didn't mean to create a new category.   Rough consensus 
> should = broad consensus---  I'll make those changes.
> All the Best,
>
> Margie-
>
>
>
> From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 2:33 AM
> To: Margie Milam; 'GNSO STI'
> Subject: Re: [gnso-sti] Draft STI Report
>
>
>
> Thank you for this, Margie. Just a quick note, at first glance: you 
> define "rough consensus" but use the term "broad consensus" in the 
> table. Is this the same? Which one did we all prefer?
> Warm regards,
>
> Olivier
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: <mailto:Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>Margie Milam
>
> To: <mailto:gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx>'GNSO STI'
>
> Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 5:46 AM
>
> Subject: [gnso-sti] Draft STI Report
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Attached for your review is the first draft of the STI Report, that 
> includes only the Trademark Clearinghouse recommendations.   I will 
> send the remainder of the document with the URS descriptions this weekend.
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> Margie
>
>
>
> _____________
>
>
>
> Margie Milam
>
> Senior Policy Counselor
>
> ICANN
>
> _____________