<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">All:</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">For what it's worth, I prepared track changes comparisons of the following:</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">CCWG Proposal vs. AoC language</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Board Proposal vs. AoC language</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Board Proposal vs. CCWG Proposal</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">These are attached.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Malcolm Hutty <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:malcolm@linx.net" target="_blank">malcolm@linx.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=""><br>
<br>
On 03/09/2015 13:27, Bruce Tonkin wrote:<br>
> Hello Malcolm,<br>
><br>
> On 02/09/2015 02:24, Bruce Tonkin wrote:<br>
>> ICANN commits to enforcing its policy relating to the current WHOIS<br>
>> and any future gTLD Directory Service,<br>
><br>
> To be clear - we are not talking about any specific service here with any pre-conceived set of requirements.<br>
<br>
</span>Indeed. But I did think there was a risk that wording could be<br>
(mis)interpreted to suggest that we are - and then used to that effect<br>
when discussing what that future Directory Service might look like.<br>
<span class=""><br>
<br>
> We are talking about a new service that is established as a result of a policy development process in the GNSO. If it helps you could add the text:<br>
><br>
> "any future gTLD DIrectory Service, established via ICANN's bottom up policy development process".<br>
<br>
</span>I think that would help.<br>
<br>
The only point that I'm making is that we aren't trying to pre-empt that<br>
process or use this insertion into the Bylaws to direct certain outcomes<br>
from it. On that, I think we're all agreed; it's just a matter of being<br>
clear in the language we choose.<br>
<span class="im HOEnZb"><br>
--<br>
Malcolm Hutty | tel: <a href="tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523" value="+442076453523">+44 20 7645 3523</a><br>
Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog<br>
London Internet Exchange | <a href="http://publicaffairs.linx.net/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://publicaffairs.linx.net/</a><br>
<br>
London Internet Exchange Ltd<br>
21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY<br>
<br>
Company Registered in England No. 3137929<br>
Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA<br>
<br>
<br>
</span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>