RE: [council] Topic for Sunday night Dinner in Sydney
- To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] Topic for Sunday night Dinner in Sydney
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 11:20:20 -0400
- In-reply-to: <BD90DE9F9B2841DAB4A0F8B160F02D30@PSEVO>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <BF255F90-CD6F-43BF-9B0E-0ACFCA9FF662@psg.com> <BD90DE9F9B2841DAB4A0F8B160F02D30@PSEVO>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: Acnee56Z8n/ozo5SRfi2Y9okIKbtQgAYN/BgAAB/nrA=
- Thread-topic: [council] Topic for Sunday night Dinner in Sydney
I believe that the term 'overarching" is used because that is
specifically what ICANN Staff used in referring to the four overarching
issues, two of which are included.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 11:13 AM
> To: 'Council GNSO'
> Subject: [council] Topic for Sunday night Dinner in Sydney
> I support your list and the suggestions to date.
> I have one question on vocabulary.
> You use the word "overarching" in:
> - Pending issue in restructuring
> - overarching issue for new gTLDs - IRT
> - overarching issue for new gTLDs - geographic names
> Do you intend to mean all-embracing, or more precisely, that
> these are issues which in Council's opinion require
> resolution before TLD expansion can proceed?
> If this is the case (and I would agree) then maybe a clearer
> term is needed.
> May I suggest either "threshold" or perhaps better "critical-path" ?