Tony and all- I'm sorry my schedule conflict did not allow me to stay on the call long enough to discuss the registry services issue. I think the draft response is well done and some of my edits clarify and underscore the points previously made. However, I draw everyone's attention to the very last sentence under the "quick look" section, b/c the MCI position goes beyond the previous statement of concern. I share the recommendations raised in Tony's draft and don't see quick look as a pragmatic solution until they are addressed. I'm happy to discuss if others disagree. Thanks and have a good weekend. Maggie -----Original Message----- From: owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org]On Behalf Of tony.ar.holmes@bt.com Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 8:28 AM To: ispcp@icann.org Subject: [ispcp] Revised statement on Registry Services Attached is a revised draft ISPCP statement on Registry Services. The change reflects the debate on the Registry PDP that took place during the last GNSO call. The Business Constituency had proposed changes to the ToRs for the Registry Services PDP. As a Consituency the ISPCP have yet to discuss that particular issue, however we did offer support for a proposal that came from the GNSO Chair. It was proposed that any significant issues identified during the process should be logged and considered later. The proposed text addresses that point. I suggest we consider this during this evenings call. For those who cannot make the call, pleases submit comments by mail before the end of this week. Regards Tony