Re: [council] GAC Letter on Geographic Names
- To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>, Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] GAC Letter on Geographic Names
- From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 10:48:20 +0200
- In-reply-to: <CF3400A2-18DE-4CD2-8B4A-CFA80F39F362@acm.org>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcngOjd2/5ZFWo2SyEifU+hqpH1ZAQ==
- Thread-topic: [council] GAC Letter on Geographic Names
- User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.17.0.090302
It does seem a pity that this had to be taken out of the draft letter...
Le 28/05/09 21:17, « Avri Doria » <avri@xxxxxxx> a écrit :
> Especially since I explicitly mentioned in conversation that this was
> not to be assumed.
> But as was said, the fact that we did not mention the subject is
> significant and meaning can be taken from its absence.
> As for clarifying, I do think it is something we will need to do in
> the meeting with the GAC.
> I am not sure I see a way where as a council we could do so before
> Of course once the comment period is open, individual constituencies
> and participants in the GNSO can voice their opinion.
> On 28 May 2009, at 14:25, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>> The GAC final letter to the Board regarding geographic names at the
>> second level was posted a short while ago:
>> I am confused about a key statement that says, "the GAC understands
>> that our proposal in relation to geographic names at the second
>> level . . is acceptable to the GNSO . . . " What am I missing
>> here? What in our letter led to this conclusion? We didn't even
>> address geographic names at the second level let along say that the
>> GAC proposal was acceptable.
>> Do we need to clarify this?