ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


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

Re: [council] Current draft


Thanks for the very fast turnaround Kristina.

The registrars would have the same issue as the one Jeff raises I would expect.

Let's discuss after this if we can.

Stéphane



Le 14 mars 2011 à 21:25, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :

> 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 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] On 
> Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 12:35 PM
> To: 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
> Date : 13 mars 2011 22:11:25 HNEC
> À : "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Stéphane Van 
> Gelder" <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
> 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>
> To:
> "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO" <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>
>  
>  



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