ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

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

[council] GAC Letter on Geographic Names

  • To: "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] GAC Letter on Geographic Names
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 14:25:08 -0400
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcnfwaFZcJYPeJyjQ2e9VhCxfqmUaA==
  • Thread-topic: GAC Letter on Geographic Names
The GAC final letter to the Board regarding geographic names at the
second level was posted a short while ago:
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-twomey-26may09-en.pdf.
 
I am confused about a key statement that says, "the GAC understands that
our proposal in relation to geographic names at the second level . . is
acceptable to the GNSO . . . "  What am I missing here?  What in our
letter led to this conclusion?  We didn't even address geographic names
at the second level let along say that the GAC proposal was acceptable.
 
Do we need to clarify this?
 
Chuck
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>