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

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

Liang,

Thanks again for your participation in the Rec6 CWG.  I assume you have seen 
the final report.  If the CWG recommendations and statements in that report did 
not adequately address your concerns, I encourage you to submit comments in 
response to the public request for comments: 
http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#cwg-report-rec6 .  Of course, if you 
support the recommendations & statements, if would also be good to communicate 
that in the public comments.

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