RE: [Fwd: [council] GNSO Comments in Response to the ccNSO-GAC Issues Report on IDN Issues]
- To: <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [Fwd: [council] GNSO Comments in Response to the ccNSO-GAC Issues Report on IDN Issues]
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:32:56 -0400
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcgM7Zbeqs8/LDFsTm6HbsvnD1+OyAACFYJZ
- Thread-topic: [Fwd: [council] GNSO Comments in Response to the ccNSO-GAC Issues Report on IDN Issues]
I think it would be helpful to keep the redlining because it clearly shows what
was changed from the WG document.
It would be good on the draft documents oage and with the agends for 27 and 31.
Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)
From: GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 12:33 PM Eastern Standard Time
To: 'Council GNSO'
Subject: [Fwd: [council] GNSO Comments in Response to the ccNSO-GAC
Issues Report on IDN Issues]
This is very clear, thank you.
Should we publish it on the draft document page, and for that purpose
would you like the red portions to stay red?
Thanks so much,
-------- Message original --------
Sujet: [council] GNSO Comments in Response to the ccNSO-GAC Issues
Report on IDN Issues
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:29:15 -0400
De: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Pour :: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Attached is the latest version of the proposed *GNSO Comments in
Response to the ccNSO-GAC Issues Report on IDN Issues*. Please note
that this version was created from the GNSO WG final draft by making the
following two non-material edits:
1. An executive summary was added: a) to do this the first three
paragraphs were made into an 'Introduction' section, including
moving some text in the 3rd paragraph into the new 'Executive
Summary'; b) the 'Executive Summary' was written by listing what
appeared to be 'the most important points from the GNSO responses
that are contained in the main body of the document'; c) the
section containing the main body of the report (Parts A and B) was
titled 'Responses to Issues Paper Questions'.
2. In Part A, paragraph 1, links were inserted to information about
the IDN technical requirements and tests.
For ease of identifying the revisions, they are highlighted in the
attached file. In reviewing the Executive Summary I suggest asking the
following questions: i) are all of the bulleted items points that should
be included in the Executive Summary? and ii) are there any points not
included that should be added?
Note that the changes made in this version were sent to WG members for
their review and comment and the changes made were result of the
If you have any questions, please let me know. This version of the
draft comments should be used for discussion by the Council in L.A.
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat - ICANN