Re: [council] RE: Letter from GAC regarding advice versus recommendations

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Good question(s), Donna.

Additionally, I'd like to understand if this response indicates that the
GAC believes that the issue of mandatory PICs/Safeguards is still open for
³highly regulated² TLDs.

Thanks‹

J.



On 9/28/15, 15:37 , "owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Austin,
Donna" <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of
Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>Hi Bruce
>
>What do you see as the consequence of the GAC's response?
>
>I found the letter from the Board to the GAC interesting and wondered why
>they had taken that approach. The letter from the Board to the GAC
>seeking clarification is available here:
>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/crocker-to-schneider-
>04sep15-en.pdf
>
>Donna
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
>Sent: Sunday, 27 September 2015 6:39 PM
>To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [council] Letter from GAC regarding advice versus recommendations
>
>Hello All,
>
>For information, the Board asked for clarification of the terms
>recommendation and advice in the recent GAC Communiqué.
>
>Attached is a response from the chair of the GAC.
>
>Regards,
>Bruce Tonkin
>
>