[CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter

[Gomes, Chuck]

Jonathan,

Like I said, it is not a big deal.  It just seemed to me that the IANA budget and PTI budget are essentially the same thing under our proposal so I was just curious as to why the edit was made.

Chuck

From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info]
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 9:59 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Cc: 'Thomas Rickert'
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter

Chuck,

I am not sure I recall the motivation (if it was discussed at all) for this change. The way I read it, is that the IANA Budget review is by definition also or in effect a PTI budget review and therefore it’s not necessary to say both.

I suggest we submit the comment as currently drafted and then, if for any reason we wish to re-introduce this “/PTI budget” component, we submit it as a minor revision.

Thanks

Jonathan

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com]
Sent: 11 September 2015 17:30
To: jrobinson at afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>; cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Cc: Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter

I like the edits made and thank Sidley for doing this.  I do have one minor question: under item 1, why was PTI deleted in this sentence: “It is anticipated that the IANA/PTI budget Budget review will include a
consultation process with IANA customers.”?  Like I said, this is not a big issue.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 7:20 AM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Cc: Thomas Rickert
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter

All,

Please see attached from Sidley. This addresses the feedback and discussion from the CWG call yesterday.

Lise and I have discussed this version and we are satisfied that we can submit this to the CCWG public comment as is.

However, as discussed yesterday, we will wait 24 hours (until 12h00 UTC, Saturday 12 September) before doing so.

If you do have additional comment or input, please do provide ASAP, ideally by 23h59 UTC today (Friday 11 Sep) and, in any event, no later than 12h00 UTC tomorrow (12 Sep).

Thank-you,


Jonathan & Lise



From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan at sidley.com]
Sent: 11 September 2015 04:02
To: Client Committee <cwg-client at icann.org<mailto:cwg-client at icann.org>>
Subject: [client com] CWG Comment Letter

Dear Client Committee,

Attached is a revised draft of the comment letter which reflects the discussion today, along with a few clean up edits.  We’ve attached a clean copy and a redline against the Tuesday draft.

Best regards,
Holly and Sharon

SHARON FLANAGAN
Partner
Sidley Austin LLP
555 California Street
Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94104
+1 415 772 1271
sflanagan at sidley.com<mailto:sflanagan at sidley.com>
www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com>
[http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png]<http://www.sidley.com/> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP




****************************************************************************************************
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us
immediately.

****************************************************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150913/c3803617/attachment.html>