RE: [council] [Fwd: PDP-Dec05 - staff discussion document]
- To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, "GNSO Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] [Fwd: PDP-Dec05 - staff discussion document]
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 11:55:15 -0400
- In-reply-to: <001e01c7b348$821aa530$e601a8c0@PSEVO>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AceywPFBLmmpbAp4TnGq1oYRiyx51AAd7OXwAAPlleAAArI1kA==
- Thread-topic: [council] [Fwd: PDP-Dec05 - staff discussion document]
I think you may be correct Philip. It seems to me that there needs be
some basis for submitting challenges; otherwise it will be a free for
all that will drag on forever. The RN-WG suggested one approach for
this with regard to Controversial Names.
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 10:37 AM
> To: 'GNSO Council'
> Subject: RE: [council] [Fwd: PDP-Dec05 - staff discussion document]
> Isn't all that is missing here is an explicit mention of what
> we meant that the objecting part must have some grounds /
> connection with the objection?
> IE similar to my name, I am the institution of the community etc.
> I agree we did not envisage this as a method by a third party.