ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


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

[council] Re: [gnso-dt-wg] FW: Summary of public comments on a draft GNSO Council resolution to curb domain tasting

  • To: gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: [council] Re: [gnso-dt-wg] FW: Summary of public comments on a draft GNSO Council resolution to curb domain tasting
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 15:01:17 +0200
  • Cc: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <831E9F3212EEF74F800F517C438DE1F002378286@STNTEXCH12.cis.neustar.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <831E9F3212EEF74F800F517C438DE1F00237805A@STNTEXCH12.cis.neustar.com> <3BA081BEFB35144DBD44B2F141C2C72704FDDDDB@cbiexm04dc.cov.com> <831E9F3212EEF74F800F517C438DE1F002378286@STNTEXCH12.cis.neustar.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Hi,

I am wondering whether the DT is going to go through all the comments and include an initial response to them in their report to the council or whether the council itself will approach then raw at the council meeting. I am fine either way, though I think having the DT do the first pass a responding to all comments will facilitate the work and give a better perspective.

I want to make sure that in our deliberations we cover all of the possibilities and issues mentioned in the public comments, including those that are not direct comments on the motion before the council or the proposals before the Registry Services Evaluation Process. I.e. we should discuss not only modification to the AGP but must make sure we cover in our discussions the proposal to eliminate the AGP. We also need to make sure we understand the implications of the current motion on the proposal before the Registry Services Evaluation Process and the Board resolution (2008.01.04) to investigate using ICANN's budgetary process to control DT through the introduction of fees .


thanks

a.




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