As discussed during today's meeting, please provide any further comments / edits by Monday 19 January at 18.00 UTC. Note, I've added a sentence that I will hope address Gabriela's concern (if not, please feel to suggest edits). Following that, Jonathan will finalise the letter and submit it to the Board. Best regards, Marika From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: Monday 12 January 2015 09:29 To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: FW: [council] Draft response letter ICANN Board Resolution Concerning Planning for Future gTLD Application Rounds Dear All, As a reminder, please see attached the proposed response letter in relation to the ICANN Board Resolution concerning planning for future gTLD Application Rounds which includes proposed edits from Bret. If you have any further comments / edits, please feel free to share those ahead of the upcoming meeting on Thursday which has an agenda item dedicated to this topic. Best regards, Marika From: Bret Fausett <bret@nic.sexy<mailto:bret@nic.sexy>> Date: Thursday 11 December 2014 16:03 To: "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Draft response letter ICANN Board Resolution Concerning Planning for Future gTLD Application Rounds Thank you, Marika. I have attached a very light redline to soften some of the wording that I thought could create a misunderstanding about what the Discussion Group is doing. As background for those not involved, we have used the Discussion Group simply to raise issues, not to think about solutions or policy recommendations. Any member of the group can raise an issue for inclusion, and we are not trying to reach consensus on what issues should be addressed or the possible policy outcomes. So I have recommended changing phrases such as "the DG is expressing concern...." to something like the "DG has raised the issue of...." because while one person may be concerned, I think it's too much to say that the group as a whole has that concern. Overall, it's an excellent letter and a fair summary of the DG discussions to date, but I would be more comfortable with the revisions attached. Thank you again, and please let me know if anyone has questions about this. Bret -- Bret Fausett, Esq. * General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc. 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200 * Playa Vista, CA 90094-2536 310-496-5755 (T) * 310-985-1351 (M) * bret@uniregistry.link<mailto:bret@uniregistry.link>, bret@nic.sexy<mailto:bret@nic.sexy> - - - - -