<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC
Hi,
When we have done this before it is their capacity as a member of
council. That means different things to different councilors.
But it goes out, assuming there is no blocking objection, as a letter
from the GNSO Council and not from the GNSO. So there is no
implication that the constituencies were brought in.
a.
On 12 May 2009, at 15:35, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
To be clear: is the support/endorsement of each councilor in her/
his individual capacity or representative capacity?
Kristina Rosette
Covington & Burling LLP
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004-2401
voice: 202-662-5173
direct fax: 202-778-5173
main fax: 202-662-6291
e-mail: krosette@xxxxxxx
This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is
confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that
this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete
this e-mail from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
-------------------------
Sent from my Wireless Handheld
----- Original Message -----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tue May 12 05:10:21 2009
Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC
Hi,
With this I am starting a 48 hour last call on this letter.
a, If there are no substantive comments before 0900 UTC on Thursday 14
May, I will submit this as a letter from the GNSO Council.
b. If there are substantive comments that result in changes then 12
hours will be added on to the open call for review of the changes.
c. Should there still be unresolvable substantive comments o Friday,
then the letter will not be able to go as a note from the GNSO
council, but still may be able to go with specific people/
constituencies as signatories.
Thanks Stéphane for taking the lead.
a.
On 12 May 2009, at 10:12, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Dear all,
In a letter dated April 24 2009, GAC Chair Janis Karklins wrote to
ICANN CEO Paul Twomey on the subject of geographical names and the
new gTLD process.
At our Council meeting last week, it was decided that we should
respond to this letter and I volunteered to write a draft. We agreed
that our response should be sent to the GAC asap, preferably by the
end of this week, and Avri informed the GAC that they should expect
a response from the GNSO Council by this Friday.
In order to fine-tune our draft response, a team was set up and I
submitted my draft to the team yesterday.
The team responded very quickly in order to meet the Council’s
Friday deadline and considered my draft “good to go”, with one
addition by David Maher and a comment by Avri, both of which have
been included in the draft letter we are submitting to the full
Council today (see attached).
Could you please review and let me know of any further changes you
would like to make, or of your approval, so that Avri may then send
the finished letter to the GAC on Friday.
My thanks to the members of the drafting team: David Maher - Avri
Doria - Nacho Amadoz - Edmon Chung - Brian Cute - Ken Stubbs - Olga
Cavalli - Tony Harris - Terry Davis – William Drake.
Best,
Stéphane Van Gelder
<GNSO Council to GAC May 2009 V2.pdf>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|