Dear Emily, colleagues as for my comments to the draft of the draft Discussion Paper, I fully share Peter's view. Kind regards, Michael -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nettlefold, Peter Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 11:30 AM To: rt4-whois Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Comments on the Issues paper [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Hello all, I have been following these discussions with interest (including the recording of the last teleconference). Almost every point I can think to make has already been made by others, so I'll avoid confusing the paper by commenting on comments etc. In short, I think some of Kathy's additions are very useful, and I think we should be able to usefully recast them to avoid some of the issues raised by Bill. I also agree with many of the points made by others, including James' point about potentially replacing the list in the introduction with a short uncontentious statement (to avoid the risk of trying to develop and agree on some sort of exhaustive list). I look forward to discussing this further with you all on Wednesday. Kind regards, Peter -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Omar Kaminski Sent: Monday, 16 May 2011 12:01 PM To: rt4-whois Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Comments on the Issues paper Dear Team, My considerations are attached, using the same docx as Bill then James. Have a great week, Omar 2011/5/15 James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>
Emily and Team:
My comments are attached, appended to Bill's draft. Most of these were composed somewhere over the N. Atlantic, so apologies if they don't make sense and/or need further explanation.
Thanks--
J.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Comments on the Issues paper
From: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk>
Date: Sun, May 15, 2011 9:13 am
To: "rt4-whois@icann.org WHOIS" <rt4-whois@icann.org>
Hi all
A gentle reminder that we agreed to review the draft issues paper, and circulate comments by close of business on Monday. The Team has asked Alice to edit the comments, and we're hoping to set up a call on Wednesday with this as the only agenda item.
So far, Kathy and Bill have circulated comments - thank you.
Please let's have your comments by end of Monday. If you're happy with the paper, or have views on the comments already made, please say so.
Thanks
Emily
76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
telephone: 01865 582 811 mobile: 07540 049 322
emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk<mailto:emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk> www.etlaw.co.uk<http://www.etlaw.co.uk>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may result in severe penalties. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Security Advisor of the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, 38 Sydney Ave, Forrest ACT 2603, telephone (02) 6271-1376 and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments. Please consider the environment before printing this email. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois