RE: [council] GAC Letter on Geographic Names

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At a minimum, it seems like a communication should be sent to Janis so
that he is not blindsided in Sydney and so that he has the opportunity
to make a correction.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 3:18 PM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] GAC Letter on Geographic Names
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 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 hand.
> Of course once the comment period is open, individual 
> constituencies and participants in the GNSO can voice their opinion.
> 
> a.
> 
> 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?
> >
> > Chuck
> 
>