[soac-mapo] FW: RE: some comments & wording change suggestion

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

FYI

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: 王亮 [mailto:wangliang@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 11:08 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; soac-mapo
Subject: Re: RE: some comments & wording change suggestion

Dear Chuck,

Thanks for your response. 

according to your question 1, I think qualified expert could be nominated from 
ICC, but that does not mean ICC equals the experts panel.

and question 2 , I proposed to remove 9.2 , because, to my understanding, 9.1 
has already incorporated the situation described in 9.2.

If I am wrong , pls correct me. 

best regards,

Liang



发件人： Gomes, Chuck
发送时间： 2010-09-20 22:18:18
收件人： 王亮; soac-mapo
抄送： 
主题： RE: some comments & wording change suggestion

Thank you very much Wang for these contributions.  Please see my questions 
below.
Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: $B2&N<(J [mailto:wangliang@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 3:37 AM
> To: soac-mapo
> Cc: Gomes, Chuck
> Subject: some comments & wording change suggestion
> 
> Dear colleagues$B!$(J
> 
> Some comments on some parts of the CWG$B!G(Js report .
> 
> 1) According to the results of the current discussions$B!$(JCWG endorsed
> the suggestion that using the $B!I(Jexperts panel$B!I(J to replace 
> $B!H(JDRSP$B!I!$(JIt is
> fine for me. However, as described in DAG4, ICANN had appointed ICC as
> a third-party to deal with Rec 6 related and community-based objection.
> The ICC is a physical body but not the experts panel proposed by CWG.
> Therefore, it is recommended that the CWG should recommend the Board to
> reconsider this issue in the report.
[Gomes, Chuck] I believe that AGv4 proposes that the ICC provide the experts as 
well.  Do you understand it differently?

> 2$B!K(JIf we decide to use $B!H(Jexperts panel$B!I(J, the wording in 
> the text of
> recommendation 9.2 should be adjusted accordingly. Moreover
> recommendation 9.1 has included the situation as described in
> recommendation 9.2, and the description of recommendation 9.1 clearly
> state the status.
[Gomes, Chuck] Do you have specific recommendations for changes to 9.1 & 9.2.
> 
> 
> Wang Liang
> China Academy of Telecommunication Research
> Ministry of Industry and Information Technology
> People's Republic of China
> Tel$B!'(J+86 10 6230 4024
> Fax$B!'(J+86 10 62304024
> Email$B!'(Jwangliang@xxxxxxx
> Add$B!'(JNo. 52 Hua Yuan Bei Road,Beijing, P.R.China
> 2010-09-20