Re: [council] For your review - GNSO Review of GAC Communique Hyderabad
- To: policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [council] For your review - GNSO Review of GAC Communique Hyderabad
- From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@xxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 21:02:20 -0200
- Authentication-results: mail.nic.br (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.br
- Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nic.br; s=dkim; t=1481583741; bh=8PoqDFr31yvowK17pz/hlsW0tzOUFZfMtK9c2Zkyw1I=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=HYsS6LnqOnSEL52LcRpW0i1rAedHRhVYwUTUZVGPk4PruBr5cEdTL4wYEMYrcsOlL pA5jLx57ShV3mcvPVKpMeIBlQD6TdSArdwtWQ0qGOhouTTaJy2sbGCIchS7hx3ByT3 BNqZ1nDa+6UMH3FZXP0KTlfVsvDcB39zIbRgHQe8=
- Dmarc-filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.1 mail.nic.br F3DA91CF04C
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On Dec 12, 2016, at 8:46 PM, policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Thanks Rubens. The use of "best practices" was in the original version that
> contracted parties sent around - I was pretty proud that I was able to keep
> it in!
I know that, but I trace the origins of this to some ICANN propositions in the
early days of the Spec 11 discussion.
> Regarding your other comment, I guess I do't know where that leaves us since
> at least the GAC seems to know what abuses are. How do we solve this?
If elected officials in a city, state or country try to revoke the Law of
Gravity, how citizens should deal with it ?