<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Issue #5 resolution
- To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] Issue #5 resolution
- From: "Olga Cavalli" <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:42:52 +0530
- Cc: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; bh=3EwnKt+rwfFKcIOPh3jL84I9U+T9i/48PNA0eR6Yxjs=; b=jjFcBQ+Gurv7KDX/pEKSQeKaL4zcXrFbeuLLjcQ62BkZ97wdA6Wg134ApBKMlk14DsowZVraN9IxJ+xulFz3CaleKo2WebTwX3HJfeJJ/nbknY+JeyGvzggvmX7NLaa1TWtC1PG9jaWWVmh212KMogxDRG5wGuAxpO+XX22bTak=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=OgUL9PvMLRY56uytysHhMgHerp+zs6y2Jixtso361zfPtHIZ8eLoAkj1zGQjrfxIySGRcxUs4e8S9K+TSHtQ2UqaM10hL6/da4e3rmMlfEU22LeJXiMUypbrB2kFGUwR0A8Voh2OriVtJ0XgZ5EabtRUPiSNjYkDau3JrDBtuG4=
- In-reply-to: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07AE8547@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07AE8547@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I agree
Olga
2008/2/13, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> That is my understanding as well.
>
> Chuck
>
>
> Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx <avri@xxxxxxx>]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 06:48 AM Eastern Standard Time
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: [council] Issue #5 resolution
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I believe we have all accepted the rewrite of Executive summary #5 to
> read:
>
> We support efforts to determine the feasibility of an interim
> solution whereby a limited number of countries or territories
> designated in the ISO 3166-1 list that have special needs would be
> granted IDN labels in the near term provided that no IDN TLDs
> associated with countries or territories are introduced earlier than
> IDN gTLDs without prior community concurrence.
>
>
>
> does anyone disagree?
>
>
> a.
>
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|