<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Travel Funding - registry proposal
- To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] Travel Funding - registry proposal
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:16:50 -0400
- In-reply-to: <33B091710A9C4DDBAFDE28EFDDF4EEDB@PSEVO>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07025855B3@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <33B091710A9C4DDBAFDE28EFDDF4EEDB@PSEVO>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AckIUqja6us/W+P+S3WgidX3gW9JxQAAWXOgAAUUxuA=
- Thread-topic: [council] Travel Funding - registry proposal
That is correct Philip. It is fully in line with the ICANN Travel
Procedure and also fully consistent with constituency positions publicly
communicated by the RyC.
Chuck
________________________________
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 10:52 AM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] Travel Funding - registry proposal
Chuck,
just for clarification:
the registry nomination for the highly limited travel funding
which has been calculated based on the number of Council members is:
NOT a Council member
NOT a working group chair
NOT active on a current Council working group.
Is this correct ?
Philip
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|