Re: [council] GAC Letter on Geographic Names
Especially since I explicitly mentioned in conversation that this was
not to be assumed.
But as was said, the fact that we did not mention the subject is
significant and meaning can be taken from its absence.
As for clarifying, I do think it is something we will need to do in
the meeting with the GAC.
I am not sure I see a way where as a council we could do so before
Of course once the comment period is open, individual constituencies
and participants in the GNSO can voice their opinion.
On 28 May 2009, at 14:25, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
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?