[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
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
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:
I am confused about a key statement that says, "the GAC understands
that our proposal in relation to geographic names at the
. . is acceptable to the GNSO . . . " What am I missing
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?