Re: [council] GAC Letter
- To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] GAC Letter
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 11:18:50 +0200
- In-reply-to: <3CEC47F3A1AD457AB26B08A15E2E1B1C@PSEVO>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <C62CCFA3.149D1firstname.lastname@example.org> <3CEC47F3A1AD457AB26B08A15E2E1B1C@PSEVO>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
As i understand it, that was a personal proposal of heres and did not
necessarily reflect the Commission's view point as expressed the next
That is not say we should not be polite and careful in registering our
differences with the policy. In many was, I believe that the GNSO
council decided at the last meeting that in term of the first level
recommendations we were not going to make a council wide statement. I
am assuming that thing may be different vis a vis the second level.
On 11 May 2009, at 09:45, Philip Sheppard wrote:
It is also an issue (fuelled by the historic ICANN rejection of
GAC's perspective) that inspired in part Commissioner Reding's
recent G12 proposal I suspect.
Do we wish to lend unintentional support her proposal ?