Dear all, I had originally revisited the document we had been working on and had a briefing with Chuck back and forth and we have now broken the document in two as per attached. Your comments are welcomed to improve. If you think we need to add more comprehension to the whole document perhaps one way to revisit is if you want to extrapolate or enlarge the definitions, we might add an appendix to those two documents. Just a suggestion. Here they are and it is not on googledocs yet and i think Beth is a very good expert on that :) I am sure we are closer to what the comments were but we are a team and i’ll work along the lines of the team work. Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/>
All – please review and comment on this draft deliverable for the Contractual Enforcement purpose, noting that it is one of two deliverables as decided in the WG meeting last Saturday, the other one covering the Regulatory purpose, which will be forthcoming shortly. Chuck From: Kris Seeburn [mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 6:32 AM To: GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org Cc: Chuck <consult@cgomes.com> Subject: Update to the document we worked on Dear all, I had originally revisited the document we had been working on and had a briefing with Chuck back and forth and we have now broken the document in two as per attached. Your comments are welcomed to improve. If you think we need to add more comprehension to the whole document perhaps one way to revisit is if you want to extrapolate or enlarge the definitions, we might add an appendix to those two documents. Just a suggestion. Here they are and it is not on googledocs yet and i think Beth is a very good expert on that :) I am sure we are closer to what the comments were but we are a team and i’ll work along the lines of the team work.
I made what I think are minor edits to the Regulatory purpose document. Chuck From: Kris Seeburn [mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 6:32 AM To: GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org Cc: Chuck <consult@cgomes.com> Subject: Update to the document we worked on Dear all, I had originally revisited the document we had been working on and had a briefing with Chuck back and forth and we have now broken the document in two as per attached. Your comments are welcomed to improve. If you think we need to add more comprehension to the whole document perhaps one way to revisit is if you want to extrapolate or enlarge the definitions, we might add an appendix to those two documents. Just a suggestion. Here they are and it is not on googledocs yet and i think Beth is a very good expert on that :) I am sure we are closer to what the comments were but we are a team and i’ll work along the lines of the team work.
Thanks Kris and Chuck. As there was still a lot of overlap in the drafts I have edited them further to distinguish between governmental enforcement of regulations and private (including ICANN) enforcement of contracts/licenses. It is unfortunate that these texts don’t include the payment processors use case identified by WG members last year (see https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60493753/14-WHOIS%20queries...) , which falls on the contractual side. In the interests of time I have left that aside for now but perhaps that could be added in later. I hope both of you are enjoying Abu Dhabi. I plan to participate remotely in tomorrow’s WG session. Steve [image001] Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com> Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | www.msk.com<http://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-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of consult@cgomes.com Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 12:46 PM To: 'Kris Seeburn'; GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] Update to the document we worked on I made what I think are minor edits to the Regulatory purpose document. Chuck From: Kris Seeburn [mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 6:32 AM To: GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org<mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org> Cc: Chuck <consult@cgomes.com<mailto:consult@cgomes.com>> Subject: Update to the document we worked on Dear all, I had originally revisited the document we had been working on and had a briefing with Chuck back and forth and we have now broken the document in two as per attached. Your comments are welcomed to improve. If you think we need to add more comprehension to the whole document perhaps one way to revisit is if you want to extrapolate or enlarge the definitions, we might add an appendix to those two documents. Just a suggestion. Here they are and it is not on googledocs yet and i think Beth is a very good expert on that :) I am sure we are closer to what the comments were but we are a team and i’ll work along the lines of the team work.
Thanks steve, Having fun not sure…so many things to still do. But i believe we will eventually move that cheese as we say. That would really also help having you online. Good edits…. +1 steve. I think and still believe we have a great team together. let us hope we can get this 20 year old situation sorted. Kris
On Nov 1, 2017, at 00:17, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com> wrote:
Thanks Kris and Chuck. As there was still a lot of overlap in the drafts I have edited them further to distinguish between governmental enforcement of regulations and private (including ICANN) enforcement of contracts/licenses.
It is unfortunate that these texts don’t include the payment processors use case identified by WG members last year (seehttps://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60493753/14-WHOIS%20queries... <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60493753/14-WHOIS%20queries...>) , which falls on the contractual side. In the interests of time I have left that aside for now but perhaps that could be added in later.
I hope both of you are enjoying Abu Dhabi. I plan to participate remotely in tomorrow’s WG session.
Steve
<image001.gif> Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | met@msk.com <mailto:met@msk.com> Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | www.msk.com <http://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-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-5-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of consult@cgomes.com <mailto:consult@cgomes.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 12:46 PM To: 'Kris Seeburn'; GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] Update to the document we worked on
I made what I think are minor edits to the Regulatory purpose document.
Chuck <> From: Kris Seeburn [mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com>] Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 6:32 AM To: GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org> Cc: Chuck <consult@cgomes.com <mailto:consult@cgomes.com>> Subject: Update to the document we worked on
Dear all,
I had originally revisited the document we had been working on and had a briefing with Chuck back and forth and we have now broken the document in two as per attached. Your comments are welcomed to improve. If you think we need to add more comprehension to the whole document perhaps one way to revisit is if you want to extrapolate or enlarge the definitions, we might add an appendix to those two documents. Just a suggestion.
Here they are and it is not on googledocs yet and i think Beth is a very good expert on that :) I am sure we are closer to what the comments were but we are a team and i’ll work along the lines of the team work.
<SJM atop CG edits re regulatory (9440256).docx><Seeburn draft 103117 contractual (9439160).docx>
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/>
Thanks Steve. I think it would be helpful for you to add the payment processors example so that the rest of the team can see it and express their opinion. Chuck From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@msk.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 1:17 PM To: 'consult@cgomes.com' <consult@cgomes.com>; 'Kris Seeburn' <seeburn.k@gmail.com>; GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] Update to the document we worked on Thanks Kris and Chuck. As there was still a lot of overlap in the drafts I have edited them further to distinguish between governmental enforcement of regulations and private (including ICANN) enforcement of contracts/licenses. It is unfortunate that these texts don’t include the payment processors use case identified by WG members last year (see https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60493753/14-WHOIS%20queries... <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60493753/14-WHOIS%20queries...> &modificationDate=1470109106000&api=v2) , which falls on the contractual side. In the interests of time I have left that aside for now but perhaps that could be added in later. I hope both of you are enjoying Abu Dhabi. I plan to participate remotely in tomorrow’s WG session. Steve Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | <mailto:met@msk.com> met@msk.com Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | <http://www.msk.com/> 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-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-5-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of consult@cgomes.com <mailto:consult@cgomes.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 12:46 PM To: 'Kris Seeburn'; GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] Update to the document we worked on I made what I think are minor edits to the Regulatory purpose document. Chuck From: Kris Seeburn [mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 6:32 AM To: GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org> Cc: Chuck <consult@cgomes.com <mailto:consult@cgomes.com> > Subject: Update to the document we worked on Dear all, I had originally revisited the document we had been working on and had a briefing with Chuck back and forth and we have now broken the document in two as per attached. Your comments are welcomed to improve. If you think we need to add more comprehension to the whole document perhaps one way to revisit is if you want to extrapolate or enlarge the definitions, we might add an appendix to those two documents. Just a suggestion. Here they are and it is not on googledocs yet and i think Beth is a very good expert on that :) I am sure we are closer to what the comments were but we are a team and i’ll work along the lines of the team work.
I looked it up I am also fine with that. It gives the broader view. Please do so steve am happy we have such a wonderful team Kris
On 1 Nov 2017, at 07:59, <consult@cgomes.com> <consult@cgomes.com> wrote:
Thanks Steve. I think it would be helpful for you to add the payment processors example so that the rest of the team can see it and express their opinion.
Chuck
From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@msk.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 1:17 PM To: 'consult@cgomes.com' <consult@cgomes.com>; 'Kris Seeburn' <seeburn.k@gmail.com>; GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] Update to the document we worked on
Thanks Kris and Chuck. As there was still a lot of overlap in the drafts I have edited them further to distinguish between governmental enforcement of regulations and private (including ICANN) enforcement of contracts/licenses.
It is unfortunate that these texts don’t include the payment processors use case identified by WG members last year (see https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60493753/14-WHOIS%20queries...) , which falls on the contractual side. In the interests of time I have left that aside for now but perhaps that could be added in later.
I hope both of you are enjoying Abu Dhabi. I plan to participate remotely in tomorrow’s WG session.
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-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of consult@cgomes.com Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 12:46 PM To: 'Kris Seeburn'; GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] Update to the document we worked on
I made what I think are minor edits to the Regulatory purpose document.
Chuck
From: Kris Seeburn [mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 6:32 AM To: GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org Cc: Chuck <consult@cgomes.com> Subject: Update to the document we worked on
Dear all,
I had originally revisited the document we had been working on and had a briefing with Chuck back and forth and we have now broken the document in two as per attached. Your comments are welcomed to improve. If you think we need to add more comprehension to the whole document perhaps one way to revisit is if you want to extrapolate or enlarge the definitions, we might add an appendix to those two documents. Just a suggestion.
Here they are and it is not on googledocs yet and i think Beth is a very good expert on that :) I am sure we are closer to what the comments were but we are a team and i’ll work along the lines of the team work.
Does anyone have objections to the edits Steve made? If not, I suggest the next person who has edits creates a clean version and then add new edits in redline so they are easy to identify. Chuc From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@msk.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 1:17 PM To: 'consult@cgomes.com' <consult@cgomes.com>; 'Kris Seeburn' <seeburn.k@gmail.com>; GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] Update to the document we worked on Thanks Kris and Chuck. As there was still a lot of overlap in the drafts I have edited them further to distinguish between governmental enforcement of regulations and private (including ICANN) enforcement of contracts/licenses. It is unfortunate that these texts don’t include the payment processors use case identified by WG members last year (see https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60493753/14-WHOIS%20queries... <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60493753/14-WHOIS%20queries...> &modificationDate=1470109106000&api=v2) , which falls on the contractual side. In the interests of time I have left that aside for now but perhaps that could be added in later. I hope both of you are enjoying Abu Dhabi. I plan to participate remotely in tomorrow’s WG session. Steve Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | <mailto:met@msk.com> met@msk.com Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | <http://www.msk.com/> 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-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-5-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of consult@cgomes.com <mailto:consult@cgomes.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 12:46 PM To: 'Kris Seeburn'; GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-5] Update to the document we worked on I made what I think are minor edits to the Regulatory purpose document. Chuck From: Kris Seeburn [mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 6:32 AM To: GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RDS-pdp-5@icann.org> Cc: Chuck <consult@cgomes.com <mailto:consult@cgomes.com> > Subject: Update to the document we worked on Dear all, I had originally revisited the document we had been working on and had a briefing with Chuck back and forth and we have now broken the document in two as per attached. Your comments are welcomed to improve. If you think we need to add more comprehension to the whole document perhaps one way to revisit is if you want to extrapolate or enlarge the definitions, we might add an appendix to those two documents. Just a suggestion. Here they are and it is not on googledocs yet and i think Beth is a very good expert on that :) I am sure we are closer to what the comments were but we are a team and i’ll work along the lines of the team work.
participants (3)
-
consult＠cgomes.com -
Kris Seeburn -
Metalitz, Steven