<<<
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
>>>
|