[council] Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 7 June 2007
- To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: [council] Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 7 June 2007
- From: philip.sheppard@xxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 17:53:32 +0200 (CEST)
- Importance: Normal
- In-reply-to: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF0701DE4780@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.c om>
- References: <009001c7a28c$d397f1a0$e601a8c0@PSEVO> <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF0701DE4780@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2
Thank you Chuck for your helpful suggestion. Allow me to explain a little
further the problem as we see it.
Suppose we do choose to vote recommendation by recommendation. Rec 1 is -
do you support new TLDs. Well the answer to that recommendation in
isolation is no.
The BC supports new TLDs subject to such things as financial and technical
standards, safeguards to avoid criminal abuse, and safeguards for consumer
protection. That was the entire essence of our work. I thought that we al
support these goals.
The recommendations were not written in isolation but listed for clarity
for the benefit of those who will implement.
If this work is unfinished, we should continue as the committee to work.
If this work is finished, we should vote as Council on the report presented.