ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-vi-feb10]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text

  • To: gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text
  • From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 00:53:22 +1000

I agree with you on this matter Kathy
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
(CLO)



On 17 July 2010 00:23, Kathy Kleiman <kKleiman@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>  Hi Kristina,
>
> I really appreciate your drafting this material, and additional details for
> our reviews. I am concerned that a number of new elements are being added to
> this material – SRSU now including SRMU. That’s new for this section, and
> merits review and consideration.
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> *Kathy Kleiman*
>
> *Director of Policy***
>
> *.ORG The Public Interest Registry*
>
> *Direct: +1 703 889-5756  Mobile: +1 703 371-6846*
>
> * *
>
> *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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Rosette, Kristina
> *Sent:* Friday, July 16, 2010 1:08 AM
> *To:* gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text
>
>
>
> All,
>
> Here's revised SRSU draft text.  In the interests of time, I am sending
> this to the list even though Milton and Avri have not had a chance to review
> it.  It's subject to any changes they may have.
>
> I've also included, for completeness, reference to the SRMU exception that
> the IPC proposed.
>
> One section I have not included is the level of support.  Milton and I both
> believe that there may be consensus support for the SRSU exception among the
> non-contracted party house members of the WG.  If we could determine that on
> the list (as opposed to on the call), I can add the relevant text.
>
> K
>
> <<07162010 SR Initial Report text.DOC>>
>


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy