Re: [council] Draft Letter from GNSO to Board re WHOIS RT Recommendations

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxx>]

+1 on Alan's remarks, particularly the first one.  I think the explanatory 
notes would be helpful.

Best,

Bill

On Oct 16, 2012, at 2:17 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> Brian, several comments:
> 
> - does this imply that you will not be sending any of the detailed breakdowns 
> by SG/Const, including the explanatory notes that 
> 
> - the use of the term SG is confusing, as it normally stands for Stakeholder 
> Group in the GNSO context. 
> 
> - Ignoring the possibly confusing abbreviation, giving percentages of the SG 
> without any information about its constitution is not very informative.
> 
> - the reference to the GNSO's 6 constituencies is unclear, as the GNSO has (I 
> think!) five constituencies in two Stakeholder Groups, and two Stakeholder 
> Groups without constituencies.
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 16/10/2012 01:46 AM, Winterfeldt, Brian wrote:
>> Dear Councilors,
>>  
>> As was discussed in Saturday‚s session with regard to the WHOIS RT work, 
>> attached please find a draft letter to the ICANN Board detailing our various 
>> constituencies‚ recommendations as to whether a PDP would be required for 
>> certain WHOIS enhancements.
>>  
>> We appreciate your prompt attention to this matter and look forward to 
>> hearing your views so that we may move forward as soon as possible with 
>> providing our communication to the Board.  Thank you.
>>  
>> Best regards,
>>  
>> Brian
>>  
>> Brian J. Winterfeldt