<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>RE: [Fwd: [council] GNSO Comments in Response to the ccNSO-GAC Issues Report on IDN Issues]</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I think it would be helpful to keep the redlining because it clearly shows what was changed from the WG document.<BR>
<BR>
It would be good on the draft documents oage and with the agends for 27 and 31.<BR>
<BR>
Chuck<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG [<A HREF="mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org">mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org</A>]<BR>
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 12:33 PM Eastern Standard Time<BR>
To: 'Council GNSO'<BR>
Subject: [Fwd: [council] GNSO Comments in Response to the ccNSO-GAC Issues Report on IDN Issues]<BR>
<BR>
Chuck,<BR>
<BR>
This is very clear, thank you.<BR>
Should we publish it on the draft document page, and for that purpose<BR>
would you like the red portions to stay red?<BR>
<BR>
Thanks so much,<BR>
<BR>
Glen<BR>
<BR>
-------- Message original --------<BR>
Sujet: [council] GNSO Comments in Response to the ccNSO-GAC Issues<BR>
Report on IDN Issues<BR>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:29:15 -0400<BR>
De: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com><BR>
Pour :: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Attached is the latest version of the proposed *GNSO Comments in<BR>
Response to the ccNSO-GAC Issues Report on IDN Issues*. Please note<BR>
that this version was created from the GNSO WG final draft by making the<BR>
following two non-material edits:<BR>
<BR>
1. An executive summary was added: a) to do this the first three<BR>
paragraphs were made into an 'Introduction' section, including<BR>
moving some text in the 3rd paragraph into the new 'Executive<BR>
Summary'; b) the 'Executive Summary' was written by listing what<BR>
appeared to be 'the most important points from the GNSO responses<BR>
that are contained in the main body of the document'; c) the<BR>
section containing the main body of the report (Parts A and B) was<BR>
titled 'Responses to Issues Paper Questions'.<BR>
2. In Part A, paragraph 1, links were inserted to information about<BR>
the IDN technical requirements and tests.<BR>
<BR>
For ease of identifying the revisions, they are highlighted in the<BR>
attached file. In reviewing the Executive Summary I suggest asking the<BR>
following questions: i) are all of the bulleted items points that should<BR>
be included in the Executive Summary? and ii) are there any points not<BR>
included that should be added?<BR>
<BR>
Note that the changes made in this version were sent to WG members for<BR>
their review and comment and the changes made were result of the<BR>
feedback received.<BR>
<BR>
If you have any questions, please let me know. This version of the<BR>
draft comments should be used for discussion by the Council in L.A.<BR>
<BR>
Chuck Gomes<BR>
<BR>
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to<BR>
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,<BR>
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any<BR>
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If<BR>
you have received this message in error, please notify sender<BR>
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
--<BR>
Glen de Saint Géry<BR>
GNSO Secretariat - ICANN<BR>
gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org<BR>
<A HREF="http://gnso.icann.org">http://gnso.icann.org</A><BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>