<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
- To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:52:53 -0400
- In-reply-to: <F137192ABE694A2EACED81700D924F80@PSEVO>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <20080819205512.HNKN1557.tomts25-srv.bellnexxia.net@toip5.srvr.bell.ca> <F137192ABE694A2EACED81700D924F80@PSEVO>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi,
As I indicated in my first message on this we have two separate
activities:
- figuring out what to do for Cairo
- deciding on a response if a response we wished to make.
While we are still trying to figure out what to do for Cairo, I
recommend that those who wish to work on a comment form a small
Drafting Team to draft a first draft we can discuss at our next meeting.
a.
On 20 Aug 2008, at 04:15, Philip Sheppard wrote:
Alan is entirely correct about mixed messages.
Lets be clear this is a VERY BAD travel policy indeed.
It is deflecting effort from policy to admin,
it ignored the good advice given during public comments,
it is divisive,
it is mean,
it is confused,
it is mathematically inept.
Is the Council and its policy making activity worth more than 0.3%
of ICANN's total budget?
Clearly not in the eyes of ICANN management.
We should condemn this policy as a Council and request Board
reconsideration.
Philip
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|