ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [net-com] NeuLevel's comments and the call 22 June

  • To: <net-com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [net-com] NeuLevel's comments and the call 22 June
  • From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 10:34:06 +0200
  • In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406182307210.28415-101000@nic.museum>
  • Sender: owner-net-com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcRVeMrLpZZu7VylQ2uCocMaC95sPwB79eVA

Sub committee members,
Agenda for June 22 call

At the close of the first comment period, there are a couple of comment received.

1. In the letter from Neulevel. Despite a rather lengthy introduction, the letter has a useful appendix with specific proposals.
In essence the proposals mostly add substance to the general concepts we have put in the report - it’s the job I had assumed ICANN staff would be doing based on our broad brush recommendations. However, now that a proposal is before us, I recommend that we take the time on the call Tuesday to evaluate the proposed additions and decide what we can and what we cannot include in our report.

2. The comments from the Progress and Freedom Foundation - are similar is some respects in that they provide suggestions to ICANN for more substance. Including some of the NeuLevel material should also satisfy the comment here. Also there is some useful background on the competitive aspects with respect to a bid process where an incumbent is also one of the potential bidders.
Whatever we decide to change in any case the next report will reference these comments.


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