ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] Comments in relation with GNSO travel funding and policy

  • To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, "GNSO Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] Comments in relation with GNSO travel funding and policy
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:01:46 -0400
  • In-reply-to: <768862D8B08B46A7923B482FDF728577@PSEVO>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <bccbb21a0903171850t3174b002y9b95efa307f01f4a@mail.gmail.com> <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07029A0A2D@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <768862D8B08B46A7923B482FDF728577@PSEVO>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcmnbI4YvQmM7WhpQdyPMsbKWGuOugG77WWwACR416AAAbo5kA==
  • Thread-topic: [council] Comments in relation with GNSO travel funding and policy
Philip,
 
First of all the suggestion was personal and not from the RyC as I
stated.  Secondly, I don't have a clue as to why you object.  Please
explain.  I don't think there was any of my edits that that suggested
that constituencies should not receive equitable treatment.  If there
is, I would agree that it needs to be fixed.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
        Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 11:13 AM
        To: 'GNSO Council'
        Subject: RE: [council] Comments in relation with GNSO travel
funding and policy
        
        
        The BC profoundly objects to the proposed change of
"constituencies" to "stakeholder groups" suggested by the RyC.
         
        Any new constituency must be approved by the Board.
        It is therefore legitimate.
        It therefore deserves equitable treatment.
         
        Philip
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>