RE: [council] Current draft

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Again, we have issues with the 3rd paragraph as that it creates the implication 
that it would be ok for GAC advice to trump (or override) input from the 
bottom-up process of the GNSO.

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy

________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.


From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 1:20 PM
To: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO
Subject: RE: [council] Current draft

OK.  Here's a redline of the text that the IPC has agreed to against Mary's 
version of the text.

To the extent the RySG (or any other SG or Cy) has any concerns about the text 
the IPC agreed to, it would be helpful to know that the exact changes of 
concern are so that I can try to expedite further IPC consultation.

Thanks.

K



________________________________
From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 4:10 PM
To: Rosette, Kristina
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Current draft
That is extremely helpful, thank you Kristina.

Stéphane



Le 14 mars 2011 à 21:09, Rosette, Kristina a écrit :


I thought I went from your "later in time" message, which I assumed was the 
most up to date.  Let me run a redline of Mary's against yours and see what the 
differences are (and if my IPC colleagues have views on them).

K

________________________________
From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 4:08 PM
To: Rosette, Kristina
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Current draft
Thanks Kristina,

Just for clarification, this seems to be based on the text we sent yesterday 
after the meeting, but since then Mary sent a reworked version that most people 
have already agreed to.

Has that version been considered by your group? It would seem simply to build 
on that version, rather than go back a step and start from the previous version.

Thanks,

Stéphane



Le 14 mars 2011 à 21:03, Rosette, Kristina a écrit :


Attached (in clean and redline form) is text that the IPC has agreed to 
support.   Please let me know if you have questions and I will do my best to 
answer them.

K


________________________________
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 12:35 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> GNSO
Subject: Fwd: [council] Current draft
Councillors,

As these group comments will have to be read out this afternoon, at the start 
of the sessions, we need to move forwards on finalising the Council comment 
asap.

Does the proposed text below suit everyone? If not, please provide proposed 
edits by this lunch time. I would like to have final approval on a text from 
the Council by the time we meet with the ccNSO at lunchtime. This will help 
give enough time to forward the text to the Board and the GAC before I read it 
out to them this afternoon. I am sure that is a courtesy they would appreciate.

Thanks,

Stéphane



Début du message réexpédié :


De : Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date : 13 mars 2011 22:11:25 HNEC
À : "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> GNSO" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, "Stéphane Van Gelder" 
<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>>
Objet : Rép : [council] Current draft

Will something like this work?

"The GNSO would like to thank the Board and the GAC for the hard work that has 
been done during the recent and ongoing consultations. The GNSO appreciates 
these efforts to bring to a close the implementation of the Policy Development 
Process that it approved by supermajority vote in 2007.
The GNSO is ready to help the Board and the GAC complete work on the issues 
that are currently before them and to provide any detail or context that may be 
needed during those discussions.
We wish to emphasize the importance of the bottom-up multi-stakeholder approach 
and request that in formulating any further changes to and new elements for the 
final version of the Applicant Guidebook, the Board fully consider the input 
provided by the GNSO.
We also ask that any resulting modifications to the Applicant Guidebook be 
carried out in a timely manner and the final version of that Guidebook be 
published as soon as possible."

Cheers
Mary




Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: 
http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>>>
From:

Stéphane Van 
Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>>

To:

"council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> GNSO" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>

Date:

3/13/2011 4:50 PM

Subject:

[council] Current draft



<redline statement to Board.DOC><IPC suggested revision to GNSO Council.DOC>