RE: [council] RE: Tim's response regarding the third amendment

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tim,
 
The issues report asks a specific question regarding this issue.  Are
you suggesting that we do not answer the question?
 
Chuck

________________________________

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 11:32 PM
To: Edmon Chung
Cc: 'Council GNSO'
Subject: RE: [council] RE: Tim's response regarding the third amendment


Yes, if we can stick with the original language in this document and let
whatever PDP goes forward deal with the gov't policy issue. I don't
think we need to go there in this document.


Tim Ruiz
Vice President
Corp. Development & Policy
The Go Daddy Group, Inc.
Direct: 319-329-9804
Fax: 480-247-4516
tim@xxxxxxxxxxx

How am I doing? Please contact my direct supervisor at
president@xxxxxxxxxxx with any feedback.

This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only
by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential
information. If you have received this email in error, please
immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and
any copy of this message and its attachments.




        -------- Original Message --------
        Subject: RE: [council] RE: Tim's response regarding the third
amendment
        From: "Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
        Date: Tue, February 12, 2008 10:15 pm
        To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
        
        
        The document in general is focused on the "PDP" i.e. longer term
discussion.
        Perhaps we should focus on your suggestion regarding 1 per in
the response 
        directly to the IDNC (fast track)? Would you be ok with that?
        Edmon
        
        
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=reply&folde
r=INBOX&uid=128095#Compose>  [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=reply&folde
r=INBOX&uid=128095#Compose> ] On
        > Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
        > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 11:56 AM
        > To: 'Council GNSO'
        > Subject: [council] RE: Tim's response regarding the third
amendment
        >
        >
        > Perhaps the issue is that the response needs to clarify
between the fast
        > track and the issues for the PDP. For the fast track, one per
entry for
        > which an IANA delegation exists, and a different response for
the PDP
        > input.
        >
        > Tim
        >
        > -------- Original Message --------
        > Subject: Tim's response regarding the third amendment
        > From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
<https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=reply&folde
r=INBOX&! ;uid=128095#Compose> >
        > Date: Tue, February 12, 2008 9:48 pm
        > To: 'Council GNSO' <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=reply&folde
r=INBOX&uid=128095#Compose> >
        >
        > I thought this was supposed to be an interim solution. A fast
track for
        > existing ccTLDs. Agreeing to one so-called IDN ccTLD per
3166-1 entry,
        > for which an IANA delegation exists, is very generous. Any
others should
        > wait for whatever PDP ensues to resolve it further.
        >
        > Tim