Kathy,
It is up to you whether they fall by the wayside but you were getting ahead of where we are at. Most of them did not apply to what we are trying to do in this exercise but will apply in the next few weeks. With a group this big and on such a controversial subject, we have to stay focus or we will not make any progress.
Chuck
From: Gnso-rds-pdp-5 [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 8:30 AM
To: gnso-rds-pdp-5@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Deliverable for ICANN Contractual Compliance
Hi Chuck, I do feel that a lot of my questions fell along the wayside, and I fear that not including them in the document may result in their not being considered by the WG as a continuing part of our discussion.
Accordingly, I have revised my original comments into questions raised alongside each bullet point and/or bullet point section in our ICANN Contractual Compliance document. Chuck, as you did with the regulatory document, I inserted these questions by way of comments running along the side.
Please let me know if you can read my questions/comments, as I work in OpenOffice and sometimes the inserts/changes are visible in Word (and sometimes not).
Best regards, Kathy
On 3/6/2018 8:14 PM, Chuck wrote:
Here is proposed final version of our deliverable for the ICANN Contractual Compliance Purpose.
If anyone objects to anything in this version, please communicate what you object to and why not later than 1700 UTC (12 on EST, 9 am PST) tomorrow (Wednesday, March 7). If no objections are communicated, I will send it to the WG list. If any objections are communicated, I will note those in the final version and send that version to the WG list.
Thanks to everyone for the thought you put into this. We still need to identify someone to present our final version in the WG meeting on Saturday morning; in that session other DT5 members may add their comments and WG members and guests will be given an opportunity to discuss it. Keeping in mind that this exercise is intended to help us continue our deliberation on whether the Regulatory Purpose is a legitimate purpose for processing any RDS data, the answers we give, and any objections will hopefully contribute to that deliberation when we get to it.
Note that I did not include the comments from Beth and Kathy because I think they were mostly for understanding of the task. Please feel free to bring them up in F2F meeting if you think they will help.
Chuck
_______________________________________________Gnso-rds-pdp-5 mailing listGnso-rds-pdp-5@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-5