RE: [nc-deletes] Draft Final Report
Good suggestions. There is also a reference to the Names Council that
should probably be changed to DNSO Council. If anyone else has any
comments, please get back to me ASAP. I hope to have a version ready to
be voted upon in the next few hours.
From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 6:34 AM
To: Jordyn Buchanan
Cc: email@example.com; evelyn.Remaley@wcom.com
Subject: Re: [nc-deletes] Draft Final Report
Looks good. There are a couple of small changes I would suggest.
Our list archive broke. As a result we now have two archives and should
make note of both in the first paragraph under 6. Outreach Efforts.
There are two instances in the report where the DNSO is referred to. The
first is in the first paragraph of 1.1 in relation to the Transfers TF,
which may be appropriate since it was convened under the DNSO. However,
the second instance, in the second paragraph of 6, should probably be
changed to GNSO.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [nc-deletes] Draft Final Report
From: "Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jbuchanan@Registrypro.com>
Date: Wed, March 19, 2003 9:18 pm
Because I spent much of today traveling, this ends up being a day
Hopefully we'll still have time to get it finalized. A summary of
1) Inserted public comment notes. I accepted most of Tim's edits and
added a few sentences of my own with regards to Danny Younger's
comment. 2) Changed the recommendations in section 3.1 as we
Tuesday's call, and also added some commentary to the discussion of
Issue 1 in order to describe the new requirement about RGP pricing.
Added commentary about the registrars desire for auto-renew to be
moved to the end of the 45 day grace period to the discussion of
4) Modified the voting section.
Please let me know if you see any problems with the new draft, so we
can get them incorporated immediately. If not, hopefully we can vote
and get this published right away.
Thanks everyone for all your time and energy getting us this far,