RE: [council] FW: GNSO Council letter to the GAC
- To: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] FW: GNSO Council letter to the GAC
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 09:37:43 -0400
- In-reply-to: <C630678D.14F42email@example.com>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <C6306261.14F3Afirstname.lastname@example.org> <C630678D.14F42email@example.com>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcnTrU9MChMfsV+6iUCEOymq8LQmoQAAaj4tAADFceQAB3hpYA==
- Thread-topic: [council] FW: GNSO Council letter to the GAC
Thanks Stephane. It looks fine to me.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 6:03 AM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: [council] FW: GNSO Council letter to the GAC
> Here is the modified draft. I have included Chuck's mods and
> simply deleted the paragraph on reserved lists, which is
> obviously causing too many problems at this time.
> I hope this version and this attempt at compromise can elicit
> the support of the BC and the IPC so that we can have a
> coordinated response to the GAC letter.