RE: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] missing recommendation in 7.1

["Balleste, Roy" <rballeste@xxxxxxx>]

Mikey,

Just a quick note to let you know that the NCSG is prepared to accept your 
language for the Recommendation (pre-Steve modifications).

Roy 


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 3:54 PM
To: Metalitz, Steven
Cc: Thick Whois
Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] missing recommendation in 7.1

hi Steve,

thanks for your edits -- i want to highlight them to the rest of the group.  
i've made one clarifying edit in the last paragraph that inserts the notion 
that the Board ask the GNSO to *charter* an issue report, so we don't have to 
bash through the details of doing that ourselves (per your comment).  the 
question of the scope and framing of that issue report are pretty far afield 
for us to undertake, i think.  i think my change is friendly to yours Steve, 
but you'll want to take a look.  unfortunately, we've fallen victim to the 
Author/Author problem again folks, so my changes and Steve's are 
indistinguishable in the draft.  the good ideas are his, the bad ideas are mine.

barring further edits by others, this is the draft that we'll look at tomorrow.

Steve i think i'm a victim of my own fuzzy thinking with that "consensus 
policy" blather.  i'd like to unring that bell if i can.  the point i was 
ham-handedly trying to make is that 7.1 is where our WG recommendations lie and 
thus go up through the GNSO/Board approval process and ultimately modify the 
way that gTLDs are operated.  i was trying to distinguish 7.1 from 7.3 which 
are "observations" and not binding.  i tried to cut a corner with "consensus 
policy" short hand -- sorry about that.

mikey