[CWG-Stewardship] FW: Naming Function Agreement Review document

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Elise,, Dear Beckie
I did make the same comments in different occasions that addition of such
qualifier is unacceptable
But someone whom I do not want to name, referred me in an INAPPROPRIATE
CONTEXT to the practice of some courts in one country to which I totally
disagrred but the co-chairs concerned  did not listen to me.
Now I am happy that you raised this issue to which I fully agree and
request its removal
Regards
Kavouss


2016-08-26 18:56 GMT+02:00 Yuko Green <yuko.green at icann.org>:

> Dear Elise,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your comment. I am forwarding this to the correct CWG mail
> list.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Yuko
>
>
>
> *From:* Lindeberg, Elise [mailto:elise.lindeberg at Nkom.no]
> *Sent:* Friday, August 26, 2016 6:29 AM
> *To:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org; Yuko Green <yuko.green at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Naming Function Agreement Review document
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Yuko
>
>
>
> Regarding the comments made by Paul Kane on section 4,7  - n/a in the
> Naming Function Agreement Review document.
>
>
>
> - Section 4.7 and subsequent is formulated as a  general reference to
> relevant and equivalent policies that must be considered by the contractor.
> Special reference to *section 1.3* ,  - and the *“where applicable”* in
> connection with the GAC principles in section 4.7 and subsequent is
> unbalanced in this context - the contractor will have to consider and
> substantiate the relevance of all mentioned/listed policies in its
> decisions and actions. So, in short form - I don’t agree with the adding of
> “”were applicable”  or special reference to any subsection of the
> referenced documents such as section 1.3 of the GAC principles.
>
>
>
>
>
> 4.7
>
> 2.     The reference to the GAC Principles should read: “Where applicable
> in accordance with Section 1.3 thereof, the 2005 Governmental Advisory
> Committee Principles and Guidelines for the Delgation and Administration of
> Country Code Top Level Domains (“GAC 2005 ccTLD Principles”).
>
> We’d like to understand more about the need for specific reference to
> Section 1.3.  We are interested in accommodating this request, but need a
> bit more information.
>
> ICANN would like more information regarding the need for specific
> reference to Section 1.3.
>
> n/a
>
> Any subsequent reference to the GAC Principles should read, “where
> applicable in accordance with Section 1.3 thereof, the GAC 2005 ccTLD
> Principles.”
>
> See above.
>
> ICANN would like more information regarding the need for specific
> reference to Section 1.3.
>
>
>
>
>
> Elise Lindeberg
>
> Senior Legal Adviser
>
> Norwegian GAC representative
>
> Norwegian Communications Authority
>
> Dir. +47 22 824607 Mob. +47 90190947
>
> ekl at nkom.no
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160828/61e79580/attachment.html>