<<<
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
>>>
|