Some changes and comments from my part

in the first paragraph of the three-letter segment on page 2 I prefer the original wording (ICANN had not consistently extended the same protections and definitions to). Comment in the doc
added a new bullet point (second) to the examples of inconsistencies.
under recommendations added a request to find a wording for second recommendation that includes new CWG with elliminated deficiencies of this CWG - so that GNSO PDP is not proposed as an only way forward. I feel that GNSO with very strong interest in this matter is not a good choice for balanced cross community work and discussions related to policy of the usage of country codes and names.

Best Regards,

Timo Võhmar

Head of development

Estonian Internet Foundation

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org> wrote:

Dear all,

As discussed during the latest call on 29 August @21UTC, you are kindly invited to submit comments or questions related to the post-Helsinki progress report. Please find the latest version in attachment.

Discussion on the list is more than welcome, but please make changes related to the progress report in the report itself.

Deadline: Monday 13 September, end of day.

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/

http://ccnso.icann.org

_______________________________________________
Ctn-crosscom mailing list
Ctn-crosscom@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom