Thanks, looks good to me. -- Sarah Wyld Domains Product Team Tucows +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392 On 3/31/2020 2:23 PM, Roger D Carney wrote:
Good Afternoon,
I think we now have the near final draft. Sarah/Tom, we added some language above the chart that ties these two (FOA/AuthCode) items together.
If anyone has any additional edits/comments/suggestions, please get them in the Scoping Letter <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sXxp5TsUskcrW444D6lYCLy6YX99Wyus/edit> by Thursday.
As a reminder, we will not be having a meeting this week so if needed please reach out to the list so that we can get everything wrapped up this week.
I also want to thank everyone that helped us reach closure on this issue. I believe it was an efficient and productive team effort, even with some changing of the circumstances during the process.
Thanks
Roger
*From:*GNSO-TPRST <gnso-tprst-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Sarah Wyld *Sent:* Tuesday, March 31, 2020 8:46 AM *To:* gnso-tprst@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [GNSO-TPRST] For your review: draft scoping paper
Notice: This email is from an external sender.
Thanks Berry and Caitlin for your work on this.
I have added a few more tracked changes, sorry. Most of the changes are for clarity, things that were hard to see when we had the commented version in progress.
I do note Tom's comment on the AuthInfo management <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sXxp5TsUskcrW444D6lYCLy6YX99Wyus/edit?di...> section and I think we would benefit from discussing that a bit. My assumption was that each row on the issues chart indicated a different topic and thus the bigger ones would be approached in individual PDPs, and it sounds like that's how Tom was reading it also, but Berry has explained that each row is a different policy topic but not necessarily a different PDP.
I would propose that we do two things: 1, combine the FOA and AuthInfo rows into one topic (I think they're too intertwined to be separated) and 2, add a sentence to the paragraph immediately preceding the chart to explain that the rows may be combined depending on what the GNSO Council thinks makes sense. I think we could propose that some be approached together (maybe TEAC and TDRP?) also.
What do you think? Thanks!
-- Sarah Wyld Domains Product Team Tucows +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392
On 3/30/2020 10:49 PM, Caitlin Tubergen wrote:
Dear Scoping Team Members:
Further to Support Staff’s action to circulate a clean version of the Scoping Paper to the Team by COB today, please find the link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sXxp5TsUskcrW444D6lYCLy6YX99Wyus/edit# <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sXxp5TsUskcrW444D6lYCLy6YX99Wyus/edit>.
As a reminder, please provide additional and final edits by *COB Thursday, 2 April*. Support Staff will then incorporate the proposed edits and send the paper to the GNSO Council by *Monday, 6 April*.
In addition, please remember to keep the your RrSG GNSO Councilors colleagues apprised of the Scoping Team's progress.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Berry and Caitlin
_______________________________________________
GNSO-TPRST mailing list
GNSO-TPRST@icann.org <mailto:GNSO-TPRST@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-tprst
_______________________________________________ GNSO-TPRST mailing list GNSO-TPRST@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-tprst