I think it would be helpful to keep the redlining because it clearly shows what was changed from the WG document. It would be good on the draft documents oage and with the agends for 27 and 31. Chuck Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com) -----Original Message----- From: GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG [mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org] Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 12:33 PM Eastern Standard Time To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [Fwd: [council] GNSO Comments in Response to the ccNSO-GAC Issues Report on IDN Issues] Chuck, This is very clear, thank you. Should we publish it on the draft document page, and for that purpose would you like the red portions to stay red? Thanks so much, Glen -------- Message original -------- Sujet: [council] GNSO Comments in Response to the ccNSO-GAC Issues Report on IDN Issues Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:29:15 -0400 De: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> Pour :: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Attached is the latest version of the proposed *GNSO Comments in Response to the ccNSO-GAC Issues Report on IDN Issues*. Please note that this version was created from the GNSO WG final draft by making the following two non-material edits: 1. An executive summary was added: a) to do this the first three paragraphs were made into an 'Introduction' section, including moving some text in the 3rd paragraph into the new 'Executive Summary'; b) the 'Executive Summary' was written by listing what appeared to be 'the most important points from the GNSO responses that are contained in the main body of the document'; c) the section containing the main body of the report (Parts A and B) was titled 'Responses to Issues Paper Questions'. 2. In Part A, paragraph 1, links were inserted to information about the IDN technical requirements and tests. For ease of identifying the revisions, they are highlighted in the attached file. In reviewing the Executive Summary I suggest asking the following questions: i) are all of the bulleted items points that should be included in the Executive Summary? and ii) are there any points not included that should be added? Note that the changes made in this version were sent to WG members for their review and comment and the changes made were result of the feedback received. If you have any questions, please let me know. This version of the draft comments should be used for discussion by the Council in L.A. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org