RE: [council] Latest RAA amendments

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I would like to stress that the Staff has been very dilligent about
trying to address every question or issue that had been raised during
the comment periods, not just what they or registrars were interested
in. 

In fact, they recently came back to us concerned about some issues that
it appeared we had failed to consider in our discussions. We agreed to
meet and see if there was anything that could be done at this late
stage. The two changes that came out of that were what we felt could be
agreed to without up-setting the apple cart (the general consensus of
the RrC).


Tim 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] Latest RAA amendments
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, December 17, 2008 7:44 am
To: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO Council"
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


Thanks for clarifying Alan. I think it is perfectly reasonable to
request feedback in terms of why decisions were made. That continues to
be an ongoing concern expressed by many and is an important
accountability issue.

I really don't have a much of a stake in the RAA issue except that the
changes seem to be positive and needed so I think it would be helpful to
get them implemented ASAP.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 9:49 PM
> To: GNSO Council
> Subject: RE: [council] Latest RAA amendments
> 
> 
> Chuck and Tim,
> 
> Perhaps my question was poorly worded. I was not trying to 
> negotiate anything but was asking for a clarification from 
> staff as to why two changes have been made to the "package", 
> after Cairo if I understand correctly (there was reference 
> made at the Thursday meeting about a few more changes that 
> were going to be made), and long after prior consultations, 
> but now is too late.
> 
> Alan
> 
> 
>