RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] proposed rewording of Objective 5 - resend

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Good idea. I have sent a few emails into GNSO email outer space, never to be 
read or bounced back.

Jeff


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 4:03 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] proposed rewording of Objective 5 - resend


Side questions to Staff re sending to lists from the wrong address...

When that happens, why does the recipient not get a bounce notice?!  That
really ought to happen, I know some of my emails have never gone anywhere
because I send from the wrong address and never realized it until far after
their relevance had passed (or never realized it).

More importantly, why can't I subscribe to send to lists from several emails
so I don't have to remember which one to send from..., yet only have the
list send to one of my addresses?  This seems like it ought to be feasible,
since I can think of it and it is a problem that afflicts anyone trying to
keep voluminous ICANN email separate from personal and business accounts....

Thanks for looking into it, if possible, and letting us know who on Staff
would handle this request.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com 


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 3:05 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] proposed rewording of Objective 5 - resend


(sent during the meeting but from the wrong address and it was rejected)


The friendly amendment:

Using all information that has been collected by ICANN to date determine
whether ...

a.



On 17 Feb 2010, at 13:46, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> 
> 
> Objective 5: To determine whether the changes to the current restrictions
and/or practices concerning registry-registrar separation and equal access
contained in the options set out in DAGv3 constitute an unacceptable
deviation from current policies regarding registry-registrar sewparation.
> 
> Rationale: this does not require research or an open-ended assessment of
the entire registry-registrar market, but a simple determination that the
DAGv3 proposals are an unauthorized policy change. 
> 
> --MM
>