DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [nc-deletes] Draft Final Report

Title: RE: [nc-deletes] Draft Final Report

Sorry for not coming back earlier. Work is a bit hectic at the moment.

I've read through and have no amendments.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jordyn Buchanan [mailto:jordyn.buchanan@Registrypro.com]
Sent: 20 March 2003 17:14
To: tim@godaddy.com
Cc: nc-deletes@dnso.org; evelyn.Remaley@wcom.com
Subject: 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.


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 6:34 AM
To: Jordyn Buchanan
Cc: nc-deletes@dnso.org; 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
   To: nc-deletes@dnso.org

   Hello all:

   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 discussed
   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 Issue
   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,


The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only.
It contains information which may be confidential and which may also be privileged.
Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it. Further, we make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to verify that this email and any attachments are free of viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which might be transferred by way of this e-mail.
Please refer to http://www.twobirds.com/fsma.cfm for our regulatory position under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 of the United Kingdom.
A full list of partners is available on request.
Details of our offices are available from http://www.twobirds.com

This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>