ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


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

Re: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP

  • To: "Olof Nordling" <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • To: "GNSO Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP
  • From: "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:51:39 +0000 GMT
  • Importance: Normal
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sensitivity: Normal

Olof, I may have additional comments, but one quick one. The reference to "oral 
presentations" should also say " via conference call". Also, I do not support 
limiting the response to only one question.  For instance, by answering "Yes" 
to Q.1, and not answering any other question, THERE IS VERY little value to 
such a response. 

The purpose of this approach is to get substantive inputs that will not come in 
via the routine public comment process. 

I understand that it may not be able to get all questions answered, but we need 
to be cautious about suggesting that only one or two responses are adequate. We 
are not only inviting responses, but making a commitment to hear several of 
them via conf call, and of course all councilors always have to read all 
comments, as well as the analysis by the staff. So, we need to really encourage 
complete as possible responses. 

Is there a better way to do that without sayiing all have to be responded? 

Perhaps it needs to be a minimum of three responses? 
Thoughts? 
-----Original Message-----
From: "olof nordling" <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 16:00:24 
To:<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [council] Draft Call for papers, new gTLD PDP

Dear all,
 
As you may recall we have a Call for Papers regarding the new gTLD PDP to write 
for announcement in early January. I have attached a very first draft to this 
effect and I would sincerely appreciate comments on the draft from those of you 
who happen to be on-line during these largely holiday-dominated days. The 
objective would be to have it distributed and posted on 3 January
 
 
 
The draft includes the ToR in extenso (the announcement on the ICANN front page 
will have to be shorter, cutting the ToR part). Would this be enough or should 
we specify another layer of questions  if so, which questions?
 
 
 
Im looking forward to receiving your views on any aspects of the draft.
 
 
 
Very best regards from Brussels (just lightly covered in snow, to mark the 
season)
 
Olof 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Regards,
Marilyn Cade



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