Yes, agree with George and Steve. Version 2 of Question 15 is preferable as it aims at drawing out problems, if any, with TMCH being a single provider and asking for input on how to overcome the same, without the distraction of suggested issues. David - is there another version of this table shared with this WG? I trust staff is taking care of consolidating feedback from various related email threads. Thanks and kind regards, Justine Chew ----- On 6 December 2016 at 16:50, Steve Levy <slevy@accentlawgroup.com> wrote:
I feel that version 2 of question 15 is preferable due to its being open-ended. I’m concerned that the list of items in version 1, though obviously of critical importance, may focus the reader’s attention too narrowly and limit helpful suggestions that are not contemplated by such list.
Regards, Steve
Steven M. Levy, Esq.
*Accent Law Group, Inc.* 301 Fulton St. Philadelphia, PA 19147
United States
Phone: +1-215-327-9094 <+1%20215-327-9094> Email: slevy@AccentLawGroup.com <slevy@accentlawgroup.com>
Website: www.AccentLawGroup.com <http://www.accentlawgroup.com/>
<http://www.accentlawgroup.com/>LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/ stevelevy43a/ ________________________________________ Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If the reader or recipient of this communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege.
From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of David Tait < david.tait@icann.org> Date: Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 12:25 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPMs Working Group: Updated TMCH Charter Questions tabulated categories document
Dear All
In advance of the meeting of the Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group on Wednesday at 1800 UTC, I am pleased to enclose the updated review of the TMCH Charter questions which has been prepared by the Sub-Team tasked to conduct an initial review of these questions.
Staff have been expressly asked to draw your attention to Question 15. Two possible formulations of this question have been prepared and the Sub-Team is seeking the view of the Working Group as to which of these should be adopted.
Kind regards,
David Tait
David A. Tait
Policy Specialist (Solicitor qualified in Scotland, non-practicing)
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Mobile: + 44-7864-793776 <+44%207864%20793776>
Email: david.tait@icann.org
www.icann.org
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
