I think I agree with most of James’ comments concerning what is not within Compliance’s purview but I am wondering if we cannot keep the content but soften it so that it does not sound like a directive to Compliance. So, in other words, Compliance could study and respond to a GNSO’s studies not because it is obliged to but because it could help improve the quality of the work that it is tasked with.
As far as shortening, if it’s going to take the form of a letter in the appendix, I am wondering if shortening is really that important.
Seth
From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 7:00 AM
To: Emily Taylor
Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Draft letter to compliance - YOUR FEEDBACK PLEASE
Emily and Team:
My comments / edits attached.
Thanks--
J.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Draft letter to compliance - YOUR FEEDBACK PLEASE
From: Emily Taylor <emily@emilytaylor.eu>
Date: Thu, November 03, 2011 7:09 am
To: rt4-whois@icann.org
Hi all
In Dakar, as a result of our communications with the Compliance team, we agreed to lift a lot of the detail out of our report, and write them a letter with our findings.
Here is my first draft. I would be grateful for your honest feedback, and particularly suggestions for shortening it.
Thanks
Emily
--
76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322
emily@emilytaylor.eu
www.etlaw.co.uk
Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713.
_______________________________________________
Rt4-whois mailing list
Rt4-whois@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
