All OK with me. Thanks Beth.
Steve
Steven J. Metalitz |
Partner, through his professional corporation
T: 202.355.7902
|
met@msk.com
Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp
LLP
|
www.msk.com
1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS.
THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE
IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU.
From: Gnso-rds-pdp-5 [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-5-bounces@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Beth Bacon
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 3:25 PM
To: Chuck; gnso-rds-pdp-5@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Deliverable for the proposed Regulatory purpose
Hi Chuck,
My responses are in line below and the attached version has the one small edit discussed below.
Thank you!
From: Gnso-rds-pdp-5 [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-5-bounces@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Chuck
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 2:59 PM
To: gnso-rds-pdp-5@icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] DT5 Deliverable for the proposed Regulatory purpose
Importance: High
I want to remind all DT5 members that we broke our assignment into two deliverables: Regulatory Purpose and ICANN Compliance Purpose. There as been quite a lot of discussion about the Compliance one but not much recently about the Regulatory
one. The latest redline version is attached with comments from Steve, Beth and me. Please look at the edits and comments and answer the following questions to help us finalize this today if possible:
Question 1
- Do you support the edits made by Steve? If not, please explain why and provide alternative wording if applicable.
Yes. Thank you, Steve.
- Note: I am considering leaving my comment in our final deliverable? Does anyone think we should not leave it or have another suggestion?
Yes. I think it should stay in the final deliverable.
Question 3
- If I understand correctly, Beth thinks we should delete the bullet and sub-bullets about registrants. Beth - please let me know if I misunderstand your comment and let us know what we should replace it
with. The other alternative would be to delete registrant from the answer to Q1.
I think we could leave in the registrant bullet and sub-bullets as Steve’s edit shows that the registrant “could” take action. In addition, I added a quick (what I think is a corresponding)
edit to Q1.
- Is anyone any favor of deleting registrant from the answer to Q1?
I think the edit makes it ok to stay at the moment.
- Beth also inserted a comment regarding the last 4 sub-bullets under registries. Would it suffice to just add her comment in our final deliverable and leave the sub-bullets as is?
That would be fine with me. I bend to the will of the group on this though.
I hope all of you will respond today because we are quickly running out of time.
Chuck