ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gtld-council]


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

Re: [gtld-council] agenda for new gtld mtg - monday aug 6 - proposed

  • To: <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>, <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gtld-council] agenda for new gtld mtg - monday aug 6 - proposed
  • From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 09:13:01 -0400

I can't be on the call.  I agree with Chuck's edits and have the following 
suggested edits.

Table headings should be repeated where the table covers more than one page.

P(age). 26:  Source of diagram (or data for it if staff-created) needs to be 
identified.  Connection between traffic and name space demand should be 
elaborated upon - assumption won't be clear to all.

P 30:  text of (iv) should be integrated into (v) or a footnote to it.

P 32, n46:  Sha'ban (lower case)

P 34, (ix):  Quoted language pertains to registration, which is not a 
requirement for trademark protection under US law, so section should be 
clarified.  Easiest fix is to replace "states" with "requires applicants for 
trademark registration to state under penalty of perjury". 

P 38, n 53:  Sheppard

P 39, line 2: insert "to address" between "place" and "conflicts"

Finally, the report does not contain any explanation for the inclusion in Part 
A of the full text of NCUC minority statements and Avri's statements while 
relegating remaining Constituency Statements to Part B and, even if it did, 
such an explanation  statement does not seem likely to  me to avoid potentially 
(and inadvertently) misleading readers not as engrossed in the process as we 
have been.  First, any reasons for highlighting these statements may be lost or 
blurred as readers get further into the report.  Second, the footnotes of NCUC 
full text use entire pages (58, 76-79) and readers may not recall that they are 
reading minority statements. 

It seems preferable to me that 
the full text of these statrements be in Part B with footnotes in Part A that 
state the existence of concerns or minority report on a particular point and 
specific page references to their location in Part B.  Another alternative, 
which I do not prefer ( because I do not believe it would be equally 
effective), is to include a very clear explanation as to why these statements 
are in Part A - and not Part B - and textual "markers" on the pages consisting 
of or containing primarily minority statements or other concerns. 

Kristina

Kristina Rosette
Covington & Burling LLP
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC  20004-2401
voice:  202-662-5173
direct fax:  202-778-5173
main fax:  202-662-6291
e-mail:  krosette@xxxxxxx

This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is 
confidential or legally privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient, 
please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has been 
inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system.  
Thank you for your cooperation.





-------------------------
Sent from my Wireless Handheld




----- Original Message -----
From: owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
Cc: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Mon Aug 06 06:10:18 2007
Subject: Re: [gtld-council] agenda for new gtld mtg - monday aug 6 - proposed

Many thanks.  I'll wait until the end of today's meeting and make  
adjustments as necessary.

Liz
.....................................................

Liz Williams
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN - Brussels
+32 2 234 7874 tel
+32 2 234 7848 fax
+32 497 07 4243 mob




On 06 Aug 2007, at 12:04, Avri Doria wrote:

> hi,
>
> Sorry it took me until today, but last week was booked solid.  In  
> reading it through, i find i agree with Chuck's edits and have  
> little to add other then what i sent you privately about the hebrew  
> rn entry and table problems.
>
> A question i have is whether recommendation 20 really belongs with  
> ToR 4 on contractual conditions" and not with ToR 3 on allocation  
> methods?
>
> a.
>
> On 6 aug 2007, at 11.26, Liz Williams wrote:
>
>> Hello Avri
>>
>> Just a quick note for everyone before the meeting.  I haven't  
>> received any other edits other than those from Chuck.  If you have  
>> sent me something then please send again and I'll be sure to check  
>> the junk filter.
>>
>> Kind regards.
>>
>> Liz
>> .....................................................
>>
>> Liz Williams
>> Senior Policy Counselor
>> ICANN - Brussels
>> +32 2 234 7874 tel
>> +32 2 234 7848 fax
>> +32 497 07 4243 mob
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 04 Aug 2007, at 23:57, Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The following is the proposed agenda for out next meeting.   
>>> Please send any comments or agenda items to the list.
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> a.
>>> ---
>>>
>>> - starting  (10 min)
>>>   - roll call
>>>   - interest statements
>>>   - agenda
>>>
>>> - open discussion on draft of 30 July (60 min)
>>>   - preparatory to scheduling for council discussion and vote
>>>
>>> - review of action item list (20 min)
>>>
>>> - any other business (20 min)
>>>
>>> - is the new gtld committee adjourned? (10 min)
>>>
>>
>>






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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy