RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Our Initial VI WG Report - an Outline

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Agree with Palage on this. There were multiple proposals , not just RACK and 
JN2 and we need to include all of these


Jeff Eckhaus



From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 10:26 AM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Our Initial VI WG Report - an Outline

Kathy,

Any reason why you would object to the CAM proposal from being incorporated 
into this Initial Report ?

In fact based upon the recent exemption discussion, I think the CAM proposal 
would be particularly constructive on this subject matter.

I would encourage people to read the most recently proposal CAM proposal posted 
on the VI WG wiki,

Summary - https://st.icann.org/vert-integration-pdp/index.cgi?camv3_summary
Proposal - https://st.icann.org/vert-integration-pdp/index.cgi?camv3

Best regards,

Michael

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 12:51 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx; Mike O'Connor; Roberto Gaetano
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Our Initial VI WG Report - an Outline

Dear Mikey and Roberto,
I checked the schedule Mikey published a few weeks ago, and realize we have a 
hard deadline of today for receiving the Initial Report, Thursday for reviewing 
the Initial Report, and Friday for publishing our Initial Report. Thus, I think 
we have reached the end of our discussion - and come to the point where we must 
put our ideas out for the community to review and comment.

As I don't see an Initial Report before us, I would suggest that our work to 
date provides all the documents we need - and the compilation could be done 
quickly, as soon as possible.

I suggest that our Initial Report should include:

1)      The Two Main Proposals on which we Converged before Brussels:  the JN2 
proposal, and the RACK+ proposal. Since there is concern about the Brussels 
process, and especially those who could not join us in the discussions, I 
propose that each proposal's initial team decide (very quickly, today) which 
version of their proposal they would like to include. These proposals should be 
listed side-by-side.

2)      The Exceptions Piece, the most recent version, which I believe is the 
piece posted by Avri today.

3)      The Compliance Piece, the most recent version, which I believe is the 
piece circulated by Ken or Brian late last week.

These are the elements of our work, the framework of our agreement. I think it 
would be full and fair to compile these materials and publish them as it is now 
time to let others ponder and comment on our work to date.

All the best,

Kathy Kleiman
Director of Policy

.ORG The Public Interest Registry
1775 Wiehle Avenue, Suite 200
Reston, Virginia 20190  USA

Main: +1 703 889-5778  | Direct: +1 703 889-5756
Mobile: +1 703 371-6846 | Fax: +1 703.889.5779
E:  kkleiman@xxxxxxx<mailto:clee@xxxxxxx>       |  W:  
www.pir.org<http://www.pir.org/>

Visit us online!
Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz!<http://www.pir.org/orgbuzz>
Find us on Facebook | 
dotorg<http://www.facebook.com/pages/dotorg/203294399456?v=wall>
See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr<http://flickr.com/orgbuzz>
See our video library on YouTube<http://youtube.com/orgbuzz>

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If 
received in error, please inform sender and then delete.



________________________________
Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include 
privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Demand Media, Inc. 
Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended 
recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and 
then delete it from your system. Thank you.