All,

 

Many thanks for your contributions to the progress report.  May I kindly invite you to submit any additional comments there might be, no later than tomorrow (Friday 9 September), end of day?  On Monday 12 September a consolidated version of the progress report will be circulated to the WG mailing list.  The next WG call is scheduled for Monday 19 September at 21 UTC. A calendar invite has been sent out in the meanwhile.

 

Best regards,

 

Joke Braeken

ccNSO Policy Advisor 

joke.braeken@icann.org

 

Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO

Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/

 

 

From: <ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@uninett.no>
Date: Friday 2 September 2016 at 12:41
To: Timo Võhmar <timo.vohmar@internet.ee>, Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au>
Cc: "ctn-crosscom@icann.org" <ctn-crosscom@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] invitation to submit comments or questions related to the post-Helsinki progress report

 

Dear all,

 

I have gone through the progress report after Heather’s answers to my questions. To make it easier to read I have accepted some of the more “linguistic” comments. Please see some new remarks from me.

 

 

Kind regards

Annebeth

 

 

From: <ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Timo Võhmar <timo.vohmar@internet.ee>
Date: Thursday 1 September 2016 22:25
To: Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au>
Cc: "ctn-crosscom@icann.org" <ctn-crosscom@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] invitation to submit comments or questions related to the post-Helsinki progress report

 

Hi Heather

 

Just to clarify, my proposal was not to remove reference to PDP but to rephrase that part of the conclusion with two options - new CWG and PDP. Added my suggestion in the doc.

 

Best Regards,

Timo Võhmar

 

 

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au> wrote:

Dear all,

 

I have followed up in answering Annebeth's questions in the comments  and have no fundamental objections. On one point I believe we have duplicate text in two places so we need to decide where to put it. I've noted that in a reply comment. New version attached.

 

I do not agree with Timo's proposal at the end of the document to remove the reference in the recommendations section to the charter of the Subsequent Procedures PDP. This should not be a controversial statement, as the Charter is available and a public document.

 

Kind regards,

 

Heather Forrest