Carlos, Please see David Conrad's questions concerning Q.10 and Q.11, and my prior question concerning Q.10. With the exception of your clarifications in response to David's question and my question, the document is ready to go to ICANN staff for publication. Please respond ASAP. Thank you. Regards, Brian P.S. David, thank you for the useful edits.
Sorry, I was traveling. Wording of 10/11 much better. Just two small comments: 1/ I think the ranking from unacceptable to excellent is better than the first one. 2/ I don't know how to spell it out, but even the Supreme Court allows for minority positions to remain on record. Shouldn't this be possible for the PDP process as well? Don't know if it fits better under 10 or 11. Greetings from Montevideo. Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez SUTEL, Costa Rica +506 4000 0010 Oficina +506 8335 2487 Móvil +506 2215 6821 Fax El 31/03/2013, a las 23:22, Brian Cute <bcute@pir.org> escribió:
Carlos,
Please see David Conrad's questions concerning Q.10 and Q.11, and my prior question concerning Q.10. With the exception of your clarifications in response to David's question and my question, the document is ready to go to ICANN staff for publication. Please respond ASAP. Thank you.
Regards, Brian
P.S. David, thank you for the useful edits. <Structuring Public Comment Questions - v6.docx>
Carlos, Thank you for the clarification. I have edited the questions consistent with your points below. I also reviewed David Conrad's outstanding comments and made a few edits to try to add clarification. The document is now final. Thanks to all who provided drafts and edits. Alice, please prepare the document for translation and posting to the Community. We will hold the Comment period open for 21 days after the close of the Beijing meeting and have a standard 21 day Reply Comment cycle. Please also add links to the recommendations of the 3 prior Review Teams in the footnotes on page 1. Thank you. Regards, Brian On 4/1/13 10:14 AM, "Carlos Raúl G." <crg@isoc-cr.org> wrote:
Sorry, I was traveling. Wording of 10/11 much better. Just two small comments: 1/ I think the ranking from unacceptable to excellent is better than the first one. 2/ I don't know how to spell it out, but even the Supreme Court allows for minority positions to remain on record. Shouldn't this be possible for the PDP process as well? Don't know if it fits better under 10 or 11.
Greetings from Montevideo.
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
SUTEL, Costa Rica
+506 4000 0010 Oficina +506 8335 2487 Móvil +506 2215 6821 Fax
El 31/03/2013, a las 23:22, Brian Cute <bcute@pir.org> escribió:
Carlos,
Please see David Conrad's questions concerning Q.10 and Q.11, and my prior question concerning Q.10. With the exception of your clarifications in response to David's question and my question, the document is ready to go to ICANN staff for publication. Please respond ASAP. Thank you.
Regards, Brian
P.S. David, thank you for the useful edits. <Structuring Public Comment Questions - v6.docx>
David, I don't see why not? Alice, Denise, is this possible? Thanks. Regards, Brian On 4/1/13 9:32 PM, "David Conrad" <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
Brian,
On Apr 1, 2013, at 6:19 PM, Brian Cute <bcute@pir.org> wrote:
Alice, please prepare the document for translation and posting to the Community.
Will it be possible to put the questions onto a service like SurveyMonkey, FluidSurvey, or the like?
Thanks, -drc
On 02/04/2013 03:32, David Conrad wrote:
Will it be possible to put the questions onto a service like SurveyMonkey, FluidSurvey, or the like?
1. Would this be in addition to having the ability to reply to questions by submitting into the public comment process? 2. Would those contributions be immediately transcribed to the public comment forum so as to allow for others to comment on the comments? Kind regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
participants (4)
-
"Carlos Raúl G." -
Brian Cute -
David Conrad -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond