ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [ispcp] Revised statement on Registry Services

  • To: <Maggie.Mansourkia@xxxxxxx>, <ispcp@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [ispcp] Revised statement on Registry Services
  • From: <tony.ar.holmes@xxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 09:24:18 -0000
  • Sender: owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcPnc2jP8ALyw1MLEdiJywCQJ8FtawAYw0VQ
  • Thread-topic: [ispcp] Revised statement on Registry Services

Thanks - no problem at all with your proposed changes.

I suggest we now leave the comment period open until end of Wednesday
4th Feb and if no additional comments are received,  ask Mark to pass it
to the GNSO Secretariat and post on our web site.


-----Original Message-----
From: Maggie Mansourkia [mailto:Maggie.Mansourkia@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: 30 January 2004 20:56
To: Holmes,AR,Tony,XGH3 HOLMESAR R; ispcp@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ispcp] Revised statement on Registry Services

Tony and all-
I'm sorry my schedule conflict did not allow me to stay on the call long
enough to discuss the registry services issue.  I think the draft
response is well done and some of my edits clarify and underscore the
points previously made.  However, I draw everyone's attention to the
very last sentence under the "quick look" section, b/c the MCI position
goes beyond the previous statement of concern.  I share the
recommendations raised in Tony's draft and don't see quick look as a
pragmatic solution until they are addressed. I'm happy to discuss if
others disagree. Thanks and have a good weekend. Maggie

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of tony.ar.holmes@xxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 8:28 AM
To: ispcp@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ispcp] Revised statement on Registry Services

Attached is a revised draft ISPCP statement on Registry Services.
The change reflects the debate on the Registry PDP that took place
during the last GNSO call. The Business Constituency had proposed
changes to the ToRs for the Registry Services PDP. As a Consituency the
ISPCP have yet to discuss that particular issue, however we did offer
support for a proposal that came from the GNSO Chair. It was proposed
that any significant issues identified during the process should be
logged and considered later. The proposed text addresses that point.
I suggest we consider this during this evenings call. For those who
cannot make the call, pleases submit comments by mail before the end of
this week.

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