Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: "Rules" for proposal-summaries and Principles-summaries

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

i've volunteered to draft a 200 word summary of DAG 4.     Will have it ready 
for review in the morning

I dont think we need to summarize Nairobi.  Its just 70 or so words:

        Resolved (2010.03.12.17), within the context of the new gTLD process, 
there will be strict separation of entities offering registry services and 
those acting as registrars. No co-ownership will be allowed.
        Resolved (2010.03.12.18), if a policy becomes available from the GNSO, 
and approved by the Board prior to the launch of the new gTLD program, that 
policy will be considered by the Board for adoption as part of the New gTLD  
Program.


RT


On Jul 16, 2010, at 1:36 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> 
> Anthony makes a good point. The DAGv4 position should be summarized.
> 
> Further, the Nairobi position should be summarized.
> 
> Obviously, the point of summary is not advocacy, but ensuring that the public 
> comment is as well informed as necessary, and without the necessity of 
> reference to external documents.
> 
> And, the prior contracts should be summarized, quite tersely, e.g., .com was 
> x1% at date1, x2% was date2, and is xx% at present, .org was x1% at date1, ...
> 
> Again, this isn't advocacy, though these are the positions I favor, but in 
> the same interest of ensuring that the public comment is as well informed as 
> necessary, and without the necessity of (significant groveling to get) 
> reference to external documents.
> 
> Eric